In the first place, we aren't told to create large churches.
We are told to preach the gospel. How many souls the Lord adds to the church is up to Him.
True to a point... Also very false. How many were Israel led out from Egypt? They were God's covenant people.
How many were saved the first day after the coming of the Holy Spirit?
How many were added in another preaching event after that?
How many were "added daily?"
God has always been somewhat about size, and the "set" of people with whom He is working to build His kingdom is the entire human race from Creation forward -- BILLIONS of people -- and God sent Christ for "all" (and this is not a theological debate about the parsing of the word all -- save that for another thread).
Simply said, God does seem to care about numbers and I find that God, who told the "human race" to "be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth..." also told them, in a spiritual sense, to do likewise. Yes, we know about "narrow is the way ... and few that enter..." and yes, we know that there are some examples found in Scripture of persons meeting in houses that could only house a set number of people, but we also see examples of Christ preaching to 5000 men, plus women and children, and 3000 men plus women and children -- that is a LOT for one gathering where someone "preaches the gospel."
To make a "prescription" what is in Scripture a "description" and to attempt to hold the size of a congregation "small" in order to satisfy some pious need is to mis-read and mis-handle the Word of Truth that shows us large instead of small. Even as we read the end of the story in Revelation, we see numbers too large to count, hence the 10,000 times 10,000, which in the idom of the day means "too many to number."
Personal preferences will of course come into play regarding music.
It is just as much all about personal preference to argue for contemporary and loudness as it is to reject it.
And it isn't wrong to form churches that appeal to affinity groups regarding music and worship style.
Of course... But each congregation will ultimately adopt (and adapt) SOME cultural musical style. The question is whose? Is it more correct to adopt the style of Billy Sunday than it is to adopt the style of David Crowder? Says who?
What IS wrong, imho, is to assume that everybody HAS to assemble under one roof, and whatever draws the biggest crowd HAS to be accepted.
Let us go back a bit to smaller, more localized neighborhood churches. The one in a neighborhood of young adults may be louder and more casual, but the town might have a traditional one for folks wanting that. Maybe a blue collar style church, a banker/dr/lawyer comfortable one, etc.
When we used to do that, before we bought into gotta-be-a-mega-church mentality, I think we actually reached more people with the gospel.
See above. While I will never speak out AGAINST smallish neighborhood congregations, I find the biblical example something else. The church is almost always addressed to the believers in an entire CITY or REGION, not some individual house.
How can we imitate and prepare for what will transpire when we (WE) gather before the very throne of God if we have isolated ourselves into tiny powerless communities of faith that do nothing more than meet together next Sunday?