This is the last of the research oriented pieces of my "modest proposal." Tomorrow I will move into my proposed action steps related directly to the Revitalization of the Quaker Message in the United States. But first, a bit more from the various congregational studies -- both to inform and dispel a few more myths.
One of the things I hear posited as "conventional wisdom" is that only Evangelical and theologically conservative churches are growing. So what role does theology play in numerical growth?
- There is very little relationship between growth and theological orientation
- Highest growth is predominantly conservative congregations (38%) and liberal congregations (39%)
- Among Evangelical denominations it is the less conservative churches that are most likely to grow (30%)
- Growth is lowest among congregations in the middle (27%)
That's not to say theology is irrelevant. Of course, it's not. But a congregation's theology does not seem to be the prime indicator of whether it will grow or not. So if theology (conservative vs liberal vs whatever) isn't the factor, what is? The answer is -- a clear sense of mission.
- More important than theological orientation is the religious character of the congregation and clarity of mission and purpose
- Growing congregations are clear about why they exist
- They grow because they understand their reason for being and they make sure they do the things that are essential to their life as a religious organization
That last point leads to an obvious further question -- what is essential? The research says:
- Essential to the mission is to create a community where people encounter God
- Congregations that involved children in worship were more likely to experience significant growth -- congregations that did not were much more likely to experience decline
There is a strong relationship between growth and the sense that the congregation is “spiritually vital and alive. And that it is welcoming and hospitable.
Congregations that grow do more than say they are welcoming and hospitable. They live those things out in very intentional ways.
- They engage in a variety of recruitment-related activities (special events, community gatherings, bring a friend Sundays, etc)
- Attendees tell others about their congregation
- They make themselves more visible through various forms of advertising
There is one programmatic activity that is most strongly related to growth -- establishing or maintaining a web site for the congregation Congregations that have started or maintained a web site in the past year are most likely to grow.
This last piece, and moving beyond it into using social networking, is crucial. It is not a fad (or only for the young -- the fastest growing segment on facebook is 55-65 year old females).
So the third part of this modest proposal is to learn to be more mission-centric and people oriented. Why are we here and how do we let know others that we'd be happy to have them join with us? In a word, we need to think like a missional church.
Below is a list of some of the resources I've used in helping me prepare these thoughts. And some sites about the missional church movement.
Tomorrow is the first of my Friendly specifics.
-- Brent
Resources
5 comments:
Brent--
I'm with you on this part:
<< But a congregation's theology does not seem to be the prime indicator of whether it will grow or not. So if theology (conservative vs liberal vs whatever) isn't the factor, what is? The answer is -- a clear sense of mission.
More important than theological orientation is the religious character of the congregation and clarity of mission and purpose
Growing congregations are clear about why they exist
They grow because they understand their reason for being and they make sure they do the things that are essential to their life as a religious organization >>
Actually, I don't know if that is a good recipe for "growth"; but it does mean the difference between a group I could be interested in and one that's not worth the trouble.
For Friends, I think this "mission" can be stated rather concisely. Here's my recent attempt:
Q. Can You Sum Up Quakerism In
Only Two Paragraphs?
About 360 years ago in England, God had an idea. He (or She) wanted a group of people to come together and do some special pieces of God’s work, in some particular ways. So when a man named George Fox climbed up a place called Pendle Hill, God called to him and showed him that there was “a great people to be gathered” there, to do that particular work, in those particular ways.
That “people” or group was the Religious Society of Friends, the Quakers. It appeared because God gathered it, to do some particular work, in the particular ways we’re supposed to do it. (What we call the Testimonies are part of this work; but only part.) We’re not done yet, and God’s not done with us, and that’s why we’re still around.
That’s my story of the Quakers, in two short paragraphs. Your mileage may vary.
Generally we do a lousy job of being clear about this identity and mission; but that's not because it takes too long to explain it . . .
Interesting too that it's the "middle of the road" groups that your researchers say are having the toughest time. (Is this a sly reference to Rev. 3:16?)
That's certainly my experience of the pastoral groups I've been around these past several years. They don't do Methodism nearly as well as the Methodists, or Baptist-ry like the Baptists. And while many have bought the religious right bill of goods, many others made a few payments but let the subscription lapse. They may vote Right, but their hearts aren't really in it.
So no wonder they lose ground to these other groups; and meanwhile, when hardly anybody there knows what Quakers are supposed to be, other than nonspecific "Christian," how will they compete with any group that is clear about who they are and where they're going?
I'm all for bigger and better signs; but I wonder what many "Quaker" groups would put on them besides, "Be Nice!" (And we hardly have a monopoly on that . . . .)
I'm chomping at the bit for you to get to the specifics of this modest proposal...
At our meeting house, the biggest sign says Quaker Meeting House, in about four foot tall letters, with the AFSC logo in the middle. It's bigger than the sign in the picture on our website, which has been updated in the last month, but not enough. There's fine print, only about inch high letters, in the street level windows, with excerpts from PacYM's Faith & Practice.
It is a rare occurrence when Chuck Fager and I agree, but I can say, with assurance, about his comment -- "That Friend speaks my mind."
I will leave the significance of Chuck and I agreeing for others to determine (a new era of peace, harmony, and properity among Friends or a sure sign that the end times are upon us).
Great post! Our meeting is one of the few in Philadelphia that has been growing. I think part of that has been a vital First Day School. Another part is the depth of our worship, the love of which seems to be central to our meeting. Other than that and the love of potlucks, I'm not sure we can articulate our mission, though we have factions (dare I admit) that are very good at articulating different missions. We have one very wise friend who this year has lead to serve on Worship & Ministry and Peace & Social Concerns simultaneously because he senses a need to discern our focus as a meeting in a way that brings both together. I will circulate a link to your series in the hope that it will spur the conversation.
I think, obviously, that there are some Friends who are getting this "right." The key is, I think, getting right for them -- as a community of faith. That they have a sense of belonging and working together.
Post a Comment