George Barna, who is actually an advocate of house churches these days, released a study this morning which showed that the people in larger churches tend to be theologically more orthodox and spiritually vital than the people in smaller churches.
I'd suggest that the study is somewhat skewed because when churches flounder they decline in numbers. This doesn't mean that all small churches are unorthodox or unhealthy -- just that the small church category, almost by definition, gets stuck with an infusion of more dysfunctional people.
As the more functional people bail on troubled congregations they shrink. On the other hand healthy churches attract people and grow. So there are more unhealthy small churches than large ones -- at least using Barna's 17 indicators. But I'd suggest that are actually some advantages to developing smaller healthy churches which intentionally multiply themselves before growing huge. Can you think of what those advantages might be?