based on the Faith Communities Today 2005 (FACT 2005) national survey - PDF document

FAC on based on the Faith Communities Today 2005 (FACT 2005) national survey of 4,100 BUILDING VITAL FAITH COMMUNTIES Tod FAC on CONTENTS ....................... .....Identity and Orientation.......5The Character of Worship .....Program and Recruitment .. ....................... 15Putting it All Together ........ 17 Somngregatiogrowing, many are decliningnd still others are essentially Why do many congrgations thrivgrowth is elusive? n, we explore various sources of congregational growth and declinencluding: e location and demographic makeup of the congregation; e congregation's y; e congregation's worship; e congregation's activities; and e congregation's leadership.nsidered here are ngregations grow, me cases the emphasis will be on decthat growing churches avoid.Growth is measured by change eragrom 20ategorowtdecline variable anged froverline, moderate declinelateau, owth. Growingregatiohange nechangeowth scale mitigates the prcongregations hange in ngregations tending to have the grhange der to be included in the growtcategorngregation must have experienced substantgrowthnd also growthrom 2000 to 2005. foowiharts report centage owingregations esponse categorn various survey questions. Foce, ªDngregatioe a clear missiopurpose?º among congregatioesponding strongly agree,º owimong those saysome,º owing. Among congregations unsure,º centage gronly ngregatioªdisagreea clear mission and purpose. strenelationship with growth is seen in the degree of di" erween thlow which in this case is 27 percentage pointsÐquite a large di" erence. Congregations are located eograpmmunities orm commvesich es. h, owth/decline pro® le of a parish eatly a" congregation. FIGURE 1 shows thngregatiowersuburbs are more likelowtcongregations ongregations are least ow in older residential ar rural areas, small tobs. Newer suburbs are where owting. Nemovw housing and often look for a wcommunity nearby. Population growth is nofeature ations ngregatiorely on a steady supply of newcoprising feature of FIGURE 1 is thowtwntown al city of a metropolitan area. In ye downtown congregations were mired in decline as the suburbs boomed and the central rbaentri® cation changed this dynamic.line, thoportiocongregations (48%) was found in older suburbs, followeclosely by esidential areas (46%). So evgrowth may be fueled by newersuburbs, population growth doorevervenbefore suburbs arowtates drop as e of new constructioves inyineas. Congregations e dependent on suburowtare often caught by surprise ux of nemmunity slows down. Blame for the subsequmembership problems is usually misdirected.Usifor 20n® rms thong relationship between owtmmunity hurcowth. ct, ongeaphic corrowtease or decrease in the number of householdszip code areas wherincreased e, ngregatioew ntrast, only ngregatioere groeas that experienced no growtdecline rom 20In years past, region growth-related factorsÐin owtegions orst). ! emains true for most rtates, hurce still slightly more likely to grow, buegion nger owtChurch. Congregations are n, they urish nd some even die. Bushown in FIGURE 2 wesngregatioow ch. In part, thbecause new congregations are more likelowing suburban areas. However, eve Congregational Context and Composition FIGURE 1 Place Where Congregation’s Principal Place of Worship is LocatedTow 0%10%20%30%40%50%60% 23%24%23%28%48% 1901-19451946-19651966-19891990-2000Year Congregation Of! cially Organized or FoundedYou 0%10%20%30%40%50%60% 22%23%39%24%21%30% 2 newbs, younger congregations are more likely ow ngregations. Neations ypes tend to be more fthemselvns. ! ey cangranted. Unfortunatelyowtdvantage ounger congregations uch longears. Af thowto® ategory varies little among congregations founded prior to 1990.minations merica, majoritngregations are predominantly white/non-Hispanic Angloº (90%). Ancase in all mainline denominations, Anhurcow. It shdded, however, elationship betwaceowtongeminations.Typically, raity churchulti-racial/multi-ethic churches are newer on average and have more dynamic, excitingational worvices. Buless true in the Episcopal Church denominations. Foven thedominantlck hurcsomeexcitingjoyfulº thchurches, Blachurches are older on average edominantlhurcfounding dates and the age of their members. otacingregatiorachurced better in most areas than ABlachurches, erere general, tho® ngregatiooup.ere newer, haounger members, ere characterized by morjoyful worship.e images of congregatiomerica To e, average parishioerage American. Bungregatioprimarildults. ! ose that have a healthy of ages tend to be growing, buowtis the ability of congregatioact yofamilies with children.Congregations where middle age and older a(age mprise ctive hildren) werow.Congregations in which morctive ere very unlikely to grow.mere presence ngregatioare haracteristics that owth. Nonly are hildren members, ngregations often lack of mission and purpose, vibrant worship, anvolvemecruitment vangelism.y also are more likelto be located in rural areas and smaller towns. Congregational Context and Composition–CONTINUED FIGURE 3 Asian/Paci! cIslander, Hispanic, 26-50%51-75%76% or MoreActive Members Who are Age 50 or OlderPercent of Congregations Growing 0%10%20%30%40%50% 23%28%48% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60% 31%19%14%42% 3 FIGURE 5 oportions of older adults leaowtproblems, larger proportions ounger adults lead to growth opportunities. congregatioattraounger adumewhat exceptional. To besureuch churches are most often found in the subureaceasingly elusive commodity mericy: children me.Yet thct that such congregations are eacounger adueneralÐpeople reqqualities that go beyond an advantageous location. Othngregatioere owtline. Noprisingly, proportion hildren relowth. As ca FIGURE 5 ore gain, churches in the suburbs tend to havmore hildren. However, elationship betwoportiohildren and growth is stronger in non-suburban areas suburbs. proportioctive aduowtdeclining churches tend to have a disproportioomen. A nven bamore conducivowt FIGURE 6 ). Evcontrolling for the proportio thproportion omengregatioline.ongeelationships fouowth/declinetically signi® canPercent of Congregations Declining 0%10%20%30%40%50% 19%26%40%16% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70% 45%40%50% -20%21-40%41% or More41-60%61% or More ell known thnservative, evangelical and sectarian religious bodies are growidenominations have been in decline since the mid-1960s. Epch anomalrom thly consistent growth in averagunday worecorded. Si however, attendance decline haveturned hurches. ! continuing disparitowtween maevangelicrotminations reinforwidely held view that theological di" erences are the key to understanding why so many mainline churches are declining vangelichurcgrowing. But the facts are Witnservativvangelicminations, thminority moderate and somewhat liberal churchare actuallow ery conservative churches. Among mominations there is a curvilinear relationship betwnservatism hurcowth; with more conservativliberal churchowihurcline. Interestingly, vangelicn. Asshown in FIGURE 7 nservativcongregations are more likelline; whereas the hurches are least likely to decow. It should be added that this is not oongeelationships owthÐas can be seen elatively small di" erween categorterms lining. Nevertheless, elation is signi® cant and may also seem counter-intuitive.Addinfusion elationshipparishes ctivelnservativ(based on rnative primatial oversight, ªNetworkº membership and General Convention votare slightly more likely to grow ngregations ity dioceses. Buhurcnservativerage, how can they y greater growtchurchity ct, the relationship betwngregationservatism and growth diween thwo groups Witery conservativowteatest among ªpredominantlnservativeº congregations owisomenservativeº congregations (onlowing). Among parisleº and more liberngregatiooportion gro respectively. So in thery conservative have another curvirelationshipngregatiofaring better. Theological Orientation of Most Active MembersPercent of Congregations Congregational Identity and Orientation 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70% 48%46%43%40%34% PredominantlyConservative 5 relationship betwowtnservatism/liberalism ity ly FIGURE 7 elation venstronger when the 11 dioceses are not included.More important ientation are claritn and purpose and the religious characongregation. Growihurches are cthey groause they have alwayStrow because they focon satisfying long-terow because they eason for bethey ªstick ell thare essential to their lives as religious organizations.Essential to the mission of anngregation is creating a community where Otherwiseongregations often resward-looking pose. stroncorrelation betwn and purpose and growt FIGURE 8 . In FIGURE 9 we seong relationship between growth anngregatioªspiritually e.ºelationship is central to whetngregationgregations are more able to do any other organization in society 0%10%20%30%40%50% 14%24%36%11% 0%10%20%30%40%50% 12%21%34%10% Disagree Unsure FIGURE 8 Spiritual Vitality and Growth Disagree Unsureritually Vital and Strongly Agree6 0%10%20%30%40%50% 18%26%36%13% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70% 33%38%43%46%51%58% FIGURE 10 FIGURE 11Congregations constantlongregations themselves are also ux as pe become active ctivegive birth, dr move Vitations are those that adapt and adaptation requires change 10 shows thngregatioy they arwillhange to meet new challenges grongregations. Mongregatiove they are willhangehich mewhat surprising given aditionalistic reputation merica. Buity congregations hangerowery unlikely. Only ngregations experienced growth in worom 20Congregations, families, communities, and clubs are alsocial groups and oharacteristic they share possibility for internal con¯ ict. Meargue, ® ght, udges ntributions. Congregational crn in which some people leave and others see eason Congregatioveln¯ e likely to have dec 11 reports resn¯ combines responses to six sources of con¯ ict. Church leaders wer fongregatioexperienced con¯ icver money naet, and n¯ ery serious,moderately serious,veriousº? Other arcon¯ icincluded ªhonducted,º ªpriest'style,progriorities ngregation,º ªuchurch facilities,º anactions nvention egarding ew Hampshire.º Only ngregatioexperienced n¯ ea during the previears. Among congregation¯ ict, onllined in worship attendancentrast, ngregatioypecon¯ ict experienced decline. Disagree Con! ict and Attendance Decline Percent of Congregations DecliningCon" ictCon" ictCon" ictCon" ictCon" ictCon" ict Congregational Identity and Orientation–CONTINUED Con" ict in Congregation in Past Amonn¯ ere o" ered, ongeelation owtcon¯ icver thiest'ylely strongly corrowth/decline n¯ ict oveney naet. ! reqsource n¯ ned, however, actions of General Convention egarding ew Hampshire.º Overall, ngregations reported experiencing some con¯ icver thalmost half (47%) of all congregatioeporting that they had moderatelery serious con¯ ict. Conservativngregatioere muce experienced sern¯ ver thctions of General Convention 2003 than liberal congregations. 12 contrasts elationship betwwo sources n¯ ict and decline in worship attendancecan be seen by the siz er(comparngregation¯ ery serious con¯ ict), very serious con¯ ver thpriest's leadership was more likeln¯ ver General Convention 2003. Con¯ icver leadership is often debilitatingÐespecially when such con¯ mination member. In general, con¯ ver General Convention uptive for mocongregations Songregations wern¯ ver thon averagehe net impact was less than con¯ verleadershipoweverct that so many congregations had con¯ icver GC eccon¯ ict on national statistics was much greaterCongregations n¯ types), ratn¯ ict, weruch more likely der resign or be ® red and to have membersntributiongregation. Apparently even¯ d some people ngregation, n¯ ily involve committed members who act on their displeasurremaining in the congregation. FIGURE 12 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70% 44%50%55%36%43%43%49%37% Source and Seriousness of Con! ictNot VerySerious Con" ictModerate Con" ictVerCon" lictSeriousness of Con" ict Over IssueNo Con" ict Priest’s Leadership Style 8 The Character of Congregational Worship Woral to the life of congregatiomerica. community gathers, they hear homilies or sermons, they participate harist, and they sing and pray.re iation minations in requency placeut there is less variation Church than in most religious bodies. eekday services are excluded, ns hold either one (40%) or two worservices ch weeknly ngregations have three services our or more on a typicalweekend. Epngregatio erthan most other Christian denominations ngregations have two services, bupercentage have four or more. eneral, thngregatiothe more likely it is to have growncongregations with four or more worship serew fro Buhurcow because they have more worvices or do they grow need to add additional services? Unfortunatelyhere is nitive answer n, ntrolling for size in 2000 and 2005 suggests that congregations tend to add worship services to accommodditional attendees and also to encourage growthharacter of worship itselfongly owtjoyful,º ªexciting,y.º Leimportant, but still moderately relowth, werª® 's presencewelcoming to newcomers.º FIGURE 14 indicates ngregatiodescribe their worship as ªjoyfulº are more likelexperience growthelationship exists among aldenominational families. However, said for wnsidered ªexciting.xciworongly relowtchurches, Roman nservative evangelichurchurches. For many ngregations, exciting wororeign vangelical. Yech, characteristics such yful, exciting ether.ªExcitingº worvolve electric projectioment, eclude harist.mfortable. It is opSpirit of God and is necessarily di" erent each weekSeveral worere actuallely relowth. strength these descriptors included: ªcoe,ºªdisorganized,formy,º anpredictable.º Al 0%10%20%30%40%50%60% 22%33%42%20% 0%10%20%30%40%50% 14%24%32%11% WorPercent of Congregations Growing Disagree How well does “it is joyful” describe your worship ser FIGURE 13 FIGURE 1419 churches would want to avoid being ªdisorganized,course, but the other three descriptors may not seem to haracteristics. problem, however, when taken together these characteristics may describe wor borinyful and exciting. 15 ongregations ªprescribes their worship very ell were less likely to grow ngregatiopredictable describes somewhat,º ªsyº l.º relationship is not one of the strongeveyoweverprising since some measure of prbad thing. Stillredimary characteristic oided. Doexactlverharacteristic in a rut rather than in God's Kingdom.Exciting worship and the use of certain instrmake worship more exe correlated with growth. 16 shows thelationship betwowtcussion instruments. Nongregatiowaytheir worship services experienced growt ascomparnly one ® fth of congregatioverums. ! e same sort of relationship weengrowth and the use of electric guitars, buelation ong as foums. A stronger relationship owth was for the use of non-electronic string or wind instruments.Dru t together as ªcontemporarorship,elationship betwowtclentemporarven wethan the correlation with the use of electric guitars. usums, electric ojection equipment ery rarch. Foinstance, only ngregatiouse drums or other percussion instruments ªoftenº orªalways.º Churcegularity are typically yinyleorship among those services. Amonnly one service, thelation betwowth and the use of drums (and other marntemporareak. It strengthens, however, among churchvices. So it would appear that the primary ntemporary worowtovinative worship experience in a parish with multiple services.One of the more interesting relationships owtdecline concerticipation hildren through speaking, readiforming. 17 0%10%20%30%40% 27%22%21%28% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60% 20%28%30%35%44% FIGURE 15 Quite WellVery WellNot at AllPercent of Congregations GrowingOftenAlwayscongregation’s worship services?NeverSometimes shows n of this question with decowth. Congregatiovolved children in worere more likely to experience growth, and congregations ere muce likely to experience declinemong congregations verinvolvhildren orship, 53% declined in wmpared nly ngregations which always included children. Of course, in orinvolvhildren outh in worship a congregation must have children presentÐand many congregations have noneontroloportiohildren elationship somewhat, Whengregatioelativelew ew children outh, volis associated with decline.lier, 60ngregations have more than one wvice. Onway ngregatioiety eryle ervices. Inmany church er such music in one service.But in some parishes the di" ereater. Amongchurches with more than one wvice, 45% indicate that the sersome erstyleº and another 33% say their serery di" erent.And it is in churc er very di" erent worservices ct on growt One third of hurcowimpared with somewhat di" erent worship services. Whahurc er very di" erent services? Here are ew responses: ªOaditional, Rihapel. One is a more informal Eucharist eative liturgies wayrom thaditional I, choir, ancolytesº; ªwe hoaize services ddition haristº; ªouaturda.m. service ery contemporarntemplative with occasional usic. Sunday is Ri formawes Sunday usic, occasional piano, be choir, aduhildren's choirº; ªoPrayer (somentemporary, sometimes quiet), the other is a blended service Eucharist, Rite 3.º Congregations ow. Congregatioincorpor eryleow. And parishes that use m erently are more likelow. On in parisways predictable are more likelline.hallenge for most Episcopal parishes since waditionalistic, featuring ways used by 87% of Episcopal parishes) and kneeling (always used by 53% of Episcopal parishes). FIGURE 17 FIGURE 18 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70% 53%49%44%35%31% 0%10%20%30%40%50% 22%24%33%21% The Character of Congregational Worship–CONTINUED SeldomOftenAlwayscongregation’s worship services?NeverSometimesre Percent of Congregations GrowingSomewhat Different Very DifferentAre Weekend Worship Services Similar, Somewhat DiffVery Different? Congregational Program and Recruitment FIGURE 19 FIGURE 20 0%10%20%30%40% 13%21%28% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60% 9%17%26%39%52% ngregations say they want to grow.Wheasked if they agree or disagree with the statement, ªocongregation strongly agree and another 33% said they agrmewhat. 19 shows thsure about growth are indeed less likely to groYet in evthere is no difference in growth rates between the two categories of agreement. Although what ciothers to attend and join. As other studies have rs 20 shand growth. Where “a lot” of members are involved Percent of Congregations GrowingTo what extent are your congregation’s members involved inNot at AllWisOur Congregation Wants More Members Grongregations are morvarietecruitment-rctivities. Mengregationgregation makes itself more visible through varorms of advertisingormal recruitment-related activities, such adivision spots, newspapeds, ers, etc., nly oweverogrammatic activity ly stroelationship owtor maintaining a web site for the congregation.Congregations ow. Congregations hange in order for such a thing to happen have a somewhat lower ratowth. Congregatiosite are very unlikely to have experienced growthObviouslyarger congregations are more likelhave web sites than small congregations. So is a wsite a result of larger size or does it actuallage growthntrolling for initial size (in 2000) suggvel ecowth, e. It is part nstellation of actngregatioowtpossibilities. ngregatioograms volve education, formation, anellowsowth. lude an emphasis on Sunday school, prayegroups, Bi spiritual retreats, youand support groups. Onongeelationships, however, ween growt ermarriage enricctivities. As shown in FIGURE 22 ngregatiokey program, 41% are growing. Pareniage enricten found in largcongregations owibs. Yethese groups hav ecowtcontrolling for congregational size and location. FIGURE 21 FIGURE 22 0%10%20%30%40% 27%18%12% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60% 20%31%41% Congregational Program and Recruitment–CONTINUED WouWouYeaPercent of Congregations FIGURE 23 FIGURE 24 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70% 15%20%23%36%44%54% 0%10%20%30%40%50% 13%17%22%25%31%35% More ngregatioowtograms ngregatio erntact members. Onongeelationships with growth is hohone calhurc prospective members, wcommunitybviouslyarger churchsta" s and more lay leantacts more easily ngregations. Still FIGURE 23 t does not take that many morntacts di" erenceut many Episcopal churccontal and almost one half (47%) make 2 contacts or less per month. Few peparticipants after one or twntacts, so to hetransitiorom visitor or prospect to member follow-ntacts are essential. If viworvice, thngregatio's card, d or some other means of letting their presence be known. Many congregations also make sure they colddresses of persons who attend special evenn order fcongregation carngregation must know the orntact themÐthrough as many ways as possible.Congregations ollow-up on visitors thrphonalls, emails, personal visits, ials, etc. are ow. Of course, in orollow-visitors. Songregatioy have few visitors, ven among thngregations, followiup on the few growthnd for congregations that have morfew visitors, following up reaps even greater rewards.You Will Grow 23 to 67 to 10YouPercent of Congregations Growingor No VisitorsNumber of Ways That the Congregation Does Follow-up with Visitors Clergy Leadership a new priest or because they cannot afford regular clergy leadership) are very unlikely to grow. Only 25 it is cl rsof a new priest’s tenure in a congregation tend to are churches with rapid clergy turnover more likely ic ic 25 occurring in 5th and 6th years of a priest’s tenure. to drop off, but never approaches the low levels of rs FIGURE 25 0%10%20%30%40%50%60% 26%39%34%16%13%9%26%29% Clergy Tenure and Growth 1998-99200020012002-03Year Rector or Vicar was Called FIGURE 26 0%10%20%30%40%50% 12%23%35%10% Unfortunately, church leader. Although clearly subjective and prone arge leader,” “knows how to get people to work together,” and signi! ,” “good preacher,” and “evangelistic.” “good liturgist,” “has a close relationship with God,” Lest one assume that it doesn’t matter whether or Similarly, and being an effective teacher also produce rather do these things in at least an adequate manner. But with growth are different. Not all priests are able to work together. These are leadership skills rather 0%10%20%30%40%50% 16%25%31%11% Percent of Congregations Not at AllQuite WellVery WellPercent of Congregations Not at AllQuite WellVery WellHow well does “knows how to get people to work together Putting It All Together effClearly, control. Among those things that are related to growth is a kof growth. And this stands to reason—areas where can occur anywhere, the effect is independent of an arsuburbs, but the effect of age structure is strong even ca uecontrolling for the effect of age.were in effect was the presence or absence of con! ictObviously, con" nd iccongregational decline. This ! nd ic iccon" con" ict is more widespread—in large part ic na uegy,” effect on growth. Although worship in most 17 edictability, chto predict growth. So apparently, as was observed icIn terms of congregational identity, the most what they should be doing. In American religion generally, Somewhat surprisingly, given previous ! nd cawere in effect. Most important was the question rec to vihighly related characteristics of the parish’s rector or is crgrowth occurs for different reasons within difpicture. The relationships are instructive, but there are different avenues for growth—not just one. It Catholic parishes. The lack of variation in growth Faith Communites Today (FACT) series was T the largest study of congregations mosques. That study was organized in 2000 and nary’s Institute for Religion Research.The long-term goal of CCSP is to conduct a mega-survey like FACT2000 at the turn of every decade, between its large-scale decadal enumerations, FACthis report, is the ! rst of these national polls. Visthe FACT/CCSP web site at http://FACT.hartsem.research. The next FACT survey will be conducted opy of the FACT2005 questionnaire, designed by the CCSP Research Tasthe FACT/CCSP website. The Episcopal version is www.episcopalchurch.org/research.htmwordings. The survey was mailed to all Episco-The Episcopal FACT 2005 survey was completed by 4,102 congregations–for a response rate of 57%. To tion’s rector or vicar. Data on worship attendance 2000 Census and ESRI’s FACTs by C. Kirk Hadaway, director of research for the daway@episcopalchurch.orgbased. Cover art is by Scott Thigpen (http://www.www.episcopalchurch.org/research.htmgmarin@episcopalchurch.org