I'd heard it said one too many times. The line goes something like this: "In the areas of the world where each pastor must care for many churches, we're baptizing many more people than we are in those areas where pastors have only one or two churches to care for.'' The speaker then directly or indirectly intimates that if we want more baptisms—for example, in North America—we should spread our pastoral force thinner.
Certainly there is some truth to the suggestion that where there are more pastors the laity tend not to be as involved. And where the laity are not as involved there are likely to be fewer conversions. But it is simplistic reasoning to say that therefore one can blame low rates of church growth in a particular area on too much pastoral attention to the congregations there.
Having heard the line one too many times, I decided to see what statistics would reveal. If it were true that too many pastors spoil the soul winning, then those conferences in the North American Division that have more churches per minister should be growing faster than those that have fewer.
From the General Conference's Annual Statistical Report for 1989 I deter mined for each of the 58 local conferences in North America the ratio of ministers per church.1 Then I ranked the conferences by number of ministers per church, putting at the beginning of my list those with the highest ratio of ministers per church, and at the end, those with the lowest. The list broke down rather naturally into three groups: the first 13 conferences on the list averaged one or more ministers per church, the last 13 conferences on the list averaged two or more churches per minister, and the rest fell in between.
Next I compared the gross growth rates, loss rates, and net conversion growth rates of the groups at the beginning and end of my list.2 As you can see from the table that accompanies this editorial, the gross growth rate of the group of conferences with the most ministers per church is significantly larger than that of the group of conferences with the fewest. And the net growth rate of the former group is nearly double that of the latter.
The loss rate seems to be the significant difference. The statistics appear to indicate that less pastoral supervision means more members drop out. 3
It doesn't hold water
I don't claim that these statistics indicate that more ministers per church will produce more net growth. One of my colleagues in the Ministerial Association says that the statistics simply show that if you depend on ministers for evangelism, you'd better have a lot of ministers if you want much evangelism.
I do believe, however, the statistics show that—in North America, at least—the suggestion that "the fewer ministers per church, the more the church will grow" doesn't hold water. Actually, many factors enter into the church growth equation: ripeness of the particular area for evangelism, for instance,4 and the "nothing succeeds like success" syndrome.
When we jump to conclusions regarding evangelistic success—our own or those of our brothers and sisters in the church—there's no telling where we may land.
1 I based the rate of ministers per church on the
figures given for ordained and licensed ministers
and churches in each conference. These figures
include conference office staff and do not include
"companies"—which no doubt has skewed the
results somewhat. I think, however, the general
picture is correct.
2 The gross growth rate is comprised of the total
of baptisms and professions of faith for the group of
conferences during 1989 divided by the total mem
bership of the group of conferences at the beginning
of that year. The loss rate is comprised of the
group's total of apostasies and missing members in
that year divided by its beginning membership. And
the net conversion growth rate is comprised of the
group's total baptisms and professions of faith minus
its apostasies and missing members divided by its
beginning membership.
3 Comparing the half of the 58 conferences at
the beginning of my list (those with more ministers
per church) with those at the end produced
results that were more ambiguous. The gross
growth rate of the latter group actually exceeded
by a little that of the former. But because the loss
rate continued significantly higher for the half
with fewer ministers per church, the net conver
sion growth rates were practically identical.
4 The July 11, 1986, Christianity Today
carried an article entitled ' 'Where in the World Is the
Church Growing?" The article said that evangelical
and charismatic denominations are growing
fastest in South Korea, the Philippines, Africa
south of the Sahara, and in Latin America, and are
experiencing relatively little growth in North
America, Australia, and Western Europe—the
same growth patterns we see in our church.
I don't think these patterns indicate that the
ministers and members of these other denominations
and of our own church in the first geographical
group are all more energetic or more dedicated
than are those in the second geographical group.
Rather, I believe it more likely that these patterns
indicate differences in the receptivity of the people
being evangelized.
5 It's easier to keep oneself and others motivated
to do evangelism when it is productive—and
thus rewarding. And it's more difficult to do so
when great effort produces few results.
