John Sandeman just sent me a fascinating US study on the characteristics of growing churches. ( click here ) For those who aren’t interested in the pragmatics of church growth ("It’s all the Holy Spirit!"), switch off now. For the rest, there are some fascinating findings. Among these -

- Recently planted churches are more likely to grow than older churches
- Multi-racial churches grow more quickly than anglo churches
- The younger the average age of attendees, the more likely the church will grow
- The more men in the church, the more likely it is to grow (!!!!)
- “Spiritually alive” churches are more likely to grow
- Churches that are willing to change are more likely to grow
- Churches that experience much conflict are likely to decline
- “Joyful” churches are more likely to grow
- Churches with drums are more likely to grow (truly!)
- Churches with a “recruitment” plan are more likely to grow
- Churches with a website are more likely to grow
- Churches that have special support groups (eg. bereavement, 12 step) are much more likely to grow (interesting)
- Churches that use multiple means (eg. phone, email) to follow-up visitors are more likely to grow

So, does this sound like *your* church??

Re: Growing Churches

G’day Craig,

These first three points (and the first 5 graphs on the link) suggest a phenomenon of mainly “transfer growth” - people transferring from other suburbs/churches to the newly establish suburb/church. No doubt with that comes growth from evangelism and conversion, but it would be good to have a survey to determine transfer vs evangelism growth.

Jason.

True, but is transfer growth a bad thing? I think it can be a very positive thing…

The early church written about in The Acts of the Apostles could have ticked most of these boxes!!!

No websites, emails and phone - but very public about Jesus and who he was.

One key ingredient mising from the list of observations - the early Christians were persecuted and sometimes killed. Suffering was a big part of the scene..... Oh and also gospel preaching and changed lives......and prayer.....
There is growth and there is gospel growth....

One of the more interesting results was the relationship between denomination/theological orientation and growth.  They found that within mainline denoms (ECUSA, Methodists, Presbyterians etc) it was the conservative and liberal churches which were growing while those in the middle were least likely to grow.

As they indicate, this would could partly explain the growing fractiousnes within such denominations.

I wonder what the pattern is for Australia - I have not seen any data from the NCLS on this particular issue.

Mark

“Spiritually alive” churches are more likely to grow

What is that exactly? I read that and all my biases spring to mind, ie, Pentecostal? Charismatic? or something else again? Five years on are the new converts still perserving in their faith?

Sorry, I’m lazy and should read the 20 page document.

Re: Growing Churches

[quote author="Jason Hobba"]G’day Craig,

These first three points (and the first 5 graphs on the link) suggest a phenomenon of mainly “transfer growth” - people transferring from other suburbs/churches to the newly establish suburb/church. No doubt with that comes growth from evangelism and conversion, but it would be good to have a survey to determine transfer vs evangelism growth.
Jason.

Jason, I can’t agree with your logic on transfer growth.

This particular study has classified recently planted churches as any church started 1975 onwards. Many churches will have boomed and busted in this time. Breaking it down to 2, 5 and 10 year old churches would be interesting.

One of the interesting things I have noticed with our church plant this past year is the personal growth among the ‘existing’ Christians involved. Pew sitters who now have jobs and ministries to do have really benefitted and grown personally from their involvement. It would have been worth doing for that alone. That God has also graciously brought new people to Christ and into regularly fellowship is a huge bonus.

I’ll go out on a limb and give our rough stats 4 months in…
20% conversion, 20% transfer, 60% core group

It is worth remembering that this is an american survey - ie a society in which over half the population identify themselves as members of a religious group. In this survey “transfer growth” may be more likely to include conversions than in Australia. This survey included many Liberal groups. The people who compiled the results were not evangelicals.

Angela;
I am not sure that “spiritually alive” was defined in the survey. What the survey showed that respondents who felt their congregation was “spirtually alive” were more likely to be in a congregation that grew.

Another interesting fact: the inner city had a lot of growing congregations according to the survey.

[quote author="Angela Crittle"]

“Spiritually alive” churches are more likely to grow

What is that exactly? I read that and all my biases spring to mind, ie, Pentecostal? Charismatic? or something else again?

Question “C1c” of the questionnaire asked the respondents to rate their level of agreement with the following statement (tick 1=strongly agree or 2=agree etc): “Our congregation is spiritually vital and alive”. No definition was provided and the fact that pretty much all religions have been surveyed might suggest why.

It would have been interesting to see if there were any differences between religions and even denominations. Especially since different religions have people with different perceptions and behaviours, which points to a weakness in the results. I wouldn’t be surprised if the reasons for growth differed among religions to varying extents, but this wasn’t mentioned so it’s hard to tell.

Interesting to see that joyful churches are more likely to grow. I wonder if this is because most Westerners perceive themselves as living joyful lives. It is widely recognised (e.g. social identity theory) that people tend to hang out in a group they identify with. Perhaps for some churches where suffering rather than joy is emphasised, this turns people off. But I’d have to stress suffering is vital to Christian faith, it’s just that some westerners don’t really suffer that greatly and so they don’t need that sort of church as much. Maybe some churches that emphasise suffering are pre-empting themselves, without really suffering. First suffer greatly, then emphasise suffering and plenty of people may come into the church because they identify and need a group that can sympathise. Even better, churches that emphasise suffering should get more radical and bold, encouraging the congregation to do likewise (therefore building a connection - congregation identifies with suffering) and it’ll get attention like the early Christian martyrs did (from non-Christians). Not that it’s the reason to suffer, it just explains the possible consequence.

We are taught in the Bible that we may suffer for our faith in Christ, and this is taught with good reason. However sometimes I feel like we’re taught to think we’re suffering and so we become comfortable with not really suffering.

I don’t have the impression that non-Christians perceive Christians today in Australia as suffering greatly, if at all. It is nothing like the early Christian days (in Aus at least), yet some churches emphasise suffering without really suffering and this might cause a disconnection with its congregation or lack of attraction. The dilemma is how to encourage a congregation to become more bold and courageous. Obviously we should be taught to act in service in Christ, and if suffering occurs so be it - rather than go out and suffer. Preaching goes on every Sunday yet I don’t know if we’re even close to the boldness displayed 2000 years ago.

There’s a few generalisations there so I hope that’s understood, just a bit of friendly discussion…

The survey does stimulate some good thought on church growth. Research is typically temporary and only lasts for a short period of time. The results might only be relevant for Western cultures in this age. But I think research still has its value in aiding decisions church leaders would make, but with research they have help from the views of their congregation. But always Bible first, then if needed do research.

Perhaps for some churches where suffering rather than joy is emphasised, this turns people off.

It is not either/or. Read Piper on this topic, he is brilliant.

Who is Piper and where can I read his argument?

[quote author="Simon Rose"]Who is Piper and where can I read his argument?

John Piper. The book to start with is “Desiring God”. It’s online - http://www.desiringgod.org/dg/id1.htm

Hmm thanks for the reference to an entire book!!! LOL. Perhaps you could elaborate on your argument. I did pick out a quote from the end of chapter 10 : “In the pursuit of joy through suffering, we magnify the all-satisfying worth of the Source of our joy”. Is that what you’re talking about, that joy and suffering go together? That’s a theological position, which is open to speculation being simply theological as is my casual laymans hypothesis. Well, it’s really just some thoughts but there’s an example just to defend my case. I can think of a few God given natural things that have joy but do not require suffering.

What I was putting forward was a hypothesis related to social identity theory. In the research/academic world one cannot disprove a hypothesis based on a study/philosophical position that did not directly tackle the hypothesis. I’m just suggesting what I said might be worth investigating in a study. But I don’t think you can instantly disprove my hypothesis based on Piper’s theology. The Bible should be used to test research for sure, I just don’t totally agree with Piper’s position, and I’m not sure it’s even directly related. Secondly in the research/academic world there are often studies that conflict with each other, hence the necessity for further investigation in specific instances.

But I think I understand where you are coming from with all respect.

Have a good one.

I believe a church that focuses on either suffering or joy to the exclusion of the other is badly in error. The Bible is clear that the Christian life will involve suffering (as does all life in this fallen world). But the Bible is also clear that the experience of Christians ought to be joy.

Both can and should be part of our Christian life.

Yeah I think it is possible to serve God in joy without suffering. But both are generally healthy for our character. At times we can serve God simply with joy, or with both joy and suffering. For instance Luke 9:10-17 Christ fed five thousand and it does not appear to have had much suffering involved. However sometimes the most sacrificial and beautiful acts in love involve suffering, for their sake in Christ’s name which brings joy to all.

Fascinating survey, hooray for research.

The thing to remember is that correlation does not equal causation.

The special sauce behind a growing congregation (causal factor/s) is a lot harder to tease out than the correlated factors. That is to say, growing congregations may appear to do x, y and z, but what drives them to do x, y and z in the first place is another matter entirely, and much more difficult to research.

Eg using drums is correlated with growth, but clearly its not the drums themselves that are causal. Its attributes of the people there that also happen to like having drums. The drums don’t suddenly make a congregation more appealing to non-members, but apparently congregations who do like having drums are more appealing to non-members in the surveyed areas.

That’s an obvious example to illustate the point, but the same could apply to %age of men, having a web site, recruitment plans, support groups (that was fascinating though) etc.

Its the secret ingredient behind it all thats the elusive thing.