Small is better, zero is best?

I think I kind of understand what Pernell Goodyear is saying in this post, "Missional Church? be prepared to lose."
To get the entire context you have to read the entire post. But here is an excerpt:

"It [being a missional church] meant that we would lose two thirds of the people who actually join us (we would lose many more "Christian tourists" who come to check things out, and many of the folks who want the church to be a "self-help" group). One third would leave disgruntled. One third would leave as Jesus called them on to new and exciting missional ventures (often they are some of our brightest and best folks). One third would stay and continue to learn to live out mission as a community."

This is an interesting statistical assertion. It reminds me of those who say that a church budget should be one-third facilities, one-third salaries, and one-third overhead.

Another quote from the article:

"It meant that we would lose money. Lots of money. Many of the people who leave are the best financial supporters."

Here’s what I am wondering. Is it possible to become "missional" and grow? Is it possible that many Christ-followers, who have been "fed" like hothouse plants, would blossom if they were allowed to grow toward their natural inclinations? Is it possible that we might still be interested in budgets, and the number of people involved in a dynamic missional group? Is it possible that there might be even more money attracted to doing the works of Jesus in our communities?

I am really wondering, would it be okay for a "missional" group to be large and making a significant, life-changing, world-changing impact?