Category: Megachurches

  • Megachurch pastors supporting Trump should be worried about driving the college-educated away

     

     

    The phenomenon of a couple of pastors publicly defending Trump

    It is surprising that Jack Graham and Robert Jeffress have been the main spokespeople and defenders of this event between "evangelical leaders" and Trump at the White House that I have described extensively at my post: Evangelicals meeting with Trump at the White House August 27, 2018

    Both pastor Southern Baptist Convention churches. That is not surprising. Many of those represented were Southern Baptist or from independent churches or from other non-church organizations. The Southern Baptist Convention has very little control over its pastors so these pastors are largely independent agents who can do as they choose.

    Theologically it is odd because they are among a small number of seminary-trained pastors who were present and therefore one would think they would be more nuanced in their support of a president who 49% of Americans think should have impeachment proceedings brought against him. It is one thing to praise Trump's support of conservative judges because of pro-life. (As stated in my previous post, this has been the rationale for evangelicals voting for Republicans since at least 2000 and probably farther back to Reagan in 1980.) It is another to praise Trump's work as president more generally. Many within the Republican party publicly object to many of the things Trump has done even though they may cooperate with him on specific issues like conservative judges. These Republican critics of Trump include many conservative columnists like George Will, Michael Gerson, David Brooks, Bill Kristol, David Frum, David French, Kathleen Parker, Peggy Noonan, and Peter Wehner. Recall too no Republican senators except Jeff Sessions supported Trump in the primary and very few readily praise him except when it is helpful for their re-election or if there is some narrow issue they agree with him about. (Senators tend to be more nuanced than their House counterparts since they have to win state-wide elections). Consider the implicit criticism of Trump by other Republicans all week in light of John McCain's death. It is strange that these pastors are not more circumspect in their praise of someone historians currently rank as the worst president in history

    Finally, as we will see, it is interesting that both Jeffress and Jack Graham are in the Dallas, Texas area, which is not as uniformly Trump-supporting as one might think. 

    One has to wonder what the congregation members think of their pastor's support of Trump. Are they unaware of Jeffress on Fox News and Jack Graham in the Christian Post or are they supportive of their pastor's vocal support for Trump?  

    I have argued in my previous post that there are good theological, biblical reasons not to support Trump. I think there are also practical, statistical ones–that a pastor is likely driving people away that they want to attract. 

     

    A statistical argument why most megachurch pastors should not vocally support Trump.

     

    (1) megachurches are often in highly educated and wealthy zip codes

    Typically, to have a very large church (17,000 weekly attendance) like that of Prestonwood Baptist Church where Jack Graham pastors, it helps to have a prosperous surrounding area. If an area is hurting economically or losing population, churches like other organizations such as businesses typically also have challenges. A church planted in a rapidly growing zipcode does not automatically grow but a church located elsewhere has a much more difficult time.

    Rick Warren recounts, "During the summer of 1979, I practically lived in university libraries doing research on the United States census data and other demographic studies . . . One afternoon I discovered that the Saddleback Valley in Orange County, southern California, was the fastest-growing area in the fastest-growing county in the United States during the decade of the 1970s . . . As I sat there in the dusty, dimly lit basement of that university library, I heard God speak clearly to me: 'That's where I want you to plant a church!'" Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Church: Growth without Compromising Your Message & Mission (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Pub., 1995), 33-34.

    David Olson writes, "Growing churches were more likely to be rural and less likely to be small town, suburban, or urban. While the common assumption is that rural churches are under the most stress, the research supports the opposite . . . Only one [other] external factor was significant in the growth or decline of the church—the change in the population of its zip code. Fast-growing churches—those that increased by more than 20 percent in attendance—were more likely to be located in zip codes where the population growth was higher than the national average. If a church declined or was stable, it was more likely located in a low-growth zip code where population growth was lower than the national average." David T. Olson, The American Church in Crisis: Groundbreaking Research Based on a National Database of over 200,000 Churches (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 132-133.

    Scott Thumma and Dave Travis similarly note that "We are now seeing a rapid rise in the number of churches reaching megachurch proportions that are located in more exurban, formerly rural counties." Scott Thumma and Dave Travis, Beyond Megachurch Myths: What We Can Learn from America’s Largest Churches (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2007), 26.

    Prestonwood Baptist Church's main campus started in a cow field and yet now finds itself among the 95% most educated and richest zip codes in the nation.

     

    Prestonwood Baptist location education and wealth

     

    (2) more educated voters disapprove of Trump

    In the 2016 election, of the 15 best-educated districts in the country, Trump won only one. Moreover, on average, Trump performed 13 points worse than Mitt Romney in the best-educated districts. "Republicans in well-educated but traditionally conservative areas now shoulder the burden of Mr. Trump’s weak performance. It suggests that previously safe Republican incumbents in Orange County, Calif., or the suburbs of Dallas and Houston could face serious challenges next November." Generally, if a white neighborhood was more than 65% college-educated, it voted for Hillary; less than 65%, it voted for Trump. This was not the case with regard to 2012 where many more areas with college-educated voters voted for Romney.   

    Moreover, a poll came out this week saying, "He’s at new lows among college-educated Americans (albeit just by a point; 29 percent approve) . . .  The single biggest shift is among college-educated white women – just 23 percent now approve of Trump, down 17 points from the peak in April 2017, with disapproval up 20 points, from 55 percent then to 75 percent now."

    This suggests that few people surrounding the megachurches, in these highly educated areas, approved of Trump in 2016 and even fewer now. Likely, this is also true of attenders. 

     

    (3) more educated people are more likely to attend church 

    In addition to the fact that more educated voters might be able to contribute more financially and bring specific talents to a congregation, more educated people are more likely to attend than less educated. More education tends to correlate with more religious participation. "Millennials with grad degrees attend about 15 percent more than millennials who dropped out of high school. Educated young people are not leaving religion, just the opposite. The relationship is also positive for Gen-X and Boomers, but smaller." And, yes, many people are still attending church. "Young people are just as likely to attend church as their parents. More educated people are actually more likely to attend than those with less education. The percent of people who attend weekly is unchanged in the last 20 years."

    Thus, statistically speaking, it does not seem like a good strategy for a pastor to be a vocal supporter of Trump in an educated zip code. Only 29% of college-educated Americans approve of the job he is doing. And these college-educated people are the most likely people to attend church. 

     

    (4) Even in Texas, there are precincts in the suburbs that did not vote Republican 

    But, you might say, "This is Texas. This is the south. The college-educated vote Republican. Everyone votes Republican." And yes, the precinct where the main campus is located voted 58% Trump, 38% Hillary. The black-lined box in the center of the map is the precinct where Prestonwood Baptist's original campus is located. But look at the map of the area surrounding the precinct. There we see some blue (Democratic) precincts on every side of the light pink precinct.

    Prestonwood Baptist location

    Here is a different map from the local Plano newspaper, where the district is numbered 123 in the southwest corner of the map. 

    Plano map

     

    So, often very large churches are located in relatively wealthy, educated areas. Educated people tend not to like Trump. Educated people are the people most open to attending church. Even in Texas, there are suburban precincts that did not prefer Trump. Therefore, it does not make a lot of sense statistically for pastors of these congregations to be vocally pro-Trump. 

     

    First Baptist Dallas is likely in worse trouble

    The black-lined area in the center of this map is the precinct where First Baptist Dallas Church is located. Robert Jeffress pastors First Baptist Dallas. They are likely to have more severe problems. This church is located in a very blue Democratic area: 75201. That precinct voted 68% Hillary, 26% Trump. With his touting of Trump on Fox News, it seems likely that many attendees drive in to the church from other areas. There are Trump-voting precincts north of the church building in University Park but that is a relatively small geographic area to draw from. There is a lot of blue all around the church's location. 

    First Baptist Dallas location

     

    But pastors should not make decisions based on statistics but rather on what is right. 

    Of course Christian pastors should not make decisions based on what is expedient. I wrote elsewhere

    for Christians, statistics are descriptive, not prescriptive. While helpful in the decision-making process, statistics do not tell Christians what they should do. The church deliberating under the Scriptures tells us what to do. A statistic which seems to indicate that a Christian response is inadvisable does not mean a Christian should jettison it. As Karl Barth defiantly said in 1933 after Hitler's party had been elected into power in Germany, "The decisive things which I seek to bring to these problems today is to carry on theology, and only theology, now as previously, and as if nothing had happened." In other words, in the tumult of seemingly discouraging events, Christians need not be dissuaded from doing what they know to be right. In Numbers 13-14, ten spies reported that the people in the land were so strong that the people of Israel seemed like grasshoppers. Joshua and Caleb saw the same data but insisted the interpretation by the spies was flawed. The minority faith-full report was vindicated. 

    But I think the statistical argument above may give someone pause who thinks that the way to keep their "evangelical" congregation or reach outsiders is to defend Trump. Be more principled. Be more thoughtful. Disagree where you should. This is what thoughtful people expect and want from their pastors.

    If a pastor feels the need to please the base of Trump supporters in their congregation, they are likely losing the educated members of their congregation (and also probably the younger members and people of color and female members though we didn't get into that in this post). It is not worth it. Many of these large megachurches are going to struggle regardless as economic forces are volatile and people's opinions are fickle. It is better to go down sinking or swimming in the raging waters with an emphasis on truth and integrity. 

     

    Update November 2019: Jim Garlow, the third "evangelical leader" who gathers with Trump who has a seminary degree (besides Robert Jeffress and Jack Graham), left Skyline Church in November 2018.

    Additional analysis of Jentezen Franklin: November 2019. Above we have analyze Trump-supporting large-church pastors who have seminary degrees (Robert Jeffress and Jack Graham).

    Jentezen Franklin does not have a seminary degree as far as I know. He is a Trump-supporter and leads a megachurch in an area with lower income and education. It is also far from any Democratic-leaning areas. 

    Reported to have a high attendance:

    Free Chapel Worship Center

    Jentezen Franklin

    Gainesville GA

    Attendance: 13568

    NONDENOM

    It's zipcode 30504 is in an area that is in the 26 percentile in terms of education and in income. 

    Free Chapel Gainsville

    Free Chapel Gainesville political

     

  • The long term danger of hiring staff with the “gift of leadership”

    I wonder about the huge trend of hiring lay people who are successful in business to be church staff at megachurches. Partly I think this is out of a reading of Romans 12:8c that these people have the gift of leadership. However, I argue that the gift is really one of administration or management (rightly translated). It is really the apostles (Paul who is writing here in Romans) that is the leader in the early church. He is able to see that all of the gifts of Romans 12:6-8 are important. That is what the leader does. And the apostles are unique because of their knowledge of Scripture and their missionary energy and vision. So, we do not need people with the gifts of leadership (Romans 12:8c) anymore than we need any of the other five gifts listed there. However, we do need apostolic type of people who did what Peter and Paul did in the book of Acts–energetic to see the good news be communicated to outsiders. We also need management type of people under the category of elders to keep things organized. I think of the divide here from John Kotter between leaders and managers. (He says you need both roles and people can do both things but still this is an interesting heuristic distinction). I worry long term that hiring lots of lay people to execute the will of the senior pastor will lead to a shallow bench when that senior pastor moves on. Instead, there should be a whole lot of theologically educated people ready in the wings. It is not enough to just have management skills (Rom 12:8c) for the long-term health of the church.  I agree it is smart to hire within–meaning hire people you know! However, I worry that we are going to have lots of megachurches that implode because the one other teaching pastor cannot carry the load when the founding senior pastor moves on. Instead, 1/2 of the staff should have their MDiv or be working on it so that when a replacement is needed, there are lots of potential people who may have the leadership and theological and teaching chops to carry on. 

     

     

    Downsides of megachurches hiring staff internally from volunteers: absence of seminary-trained people when successor is needed; yes people.

     
     
    10:32 AM – 12 Nov 2015 · Details
     

     

     

     

     

    But I urge seminary-trained people to volunteer at churches or under people they admire and see if there is an opening eventually.

    0 retweets0 likes

     

     

     

     

    Hiring able volunteers with gift of "leadership" (Rom 12:8c) functionally means hiring executors who will carry out will of those in charge.

    0 retweets0 likes

     

     

     

     

     

    In New Testament, the most influential did not so much have gift of leadership/management (Rom 12:8c) but were apostles utilizing judgment.

    0 retweets0 likes

     

     

     

     

     

    "Management/Admin" is #5 of 6 gifts in Rom 12:6-8. Apostolic / leadership perspective is all six contribute to goal of witness to Jesus.

    0 retweets0 likes

     

     

     

     

    Two levels in New Testament: itinerants (apostles) and elders (overseer / deacons). — Gordon Fee, Listening to the Spirit in the Text, 141.

    0 retweets1 like

     

     

     

     

    John Kotter “Management brings a degree of order and consistency … Leadership, by contrast, is about change.” https://hbr.org/2001/12/what-leaders-really-do …

    View summary

    0 retweets0 likes

     

     

     

     

     

  • Two new reports: Thumma / Bird on Megachurches and Chaves on American Congregations

    Below I have highlighted two important new reports on the church by premier academic sociologists.  At the end I have listed a few things to keep in mind while interpreting statistics. 

    The National Survey of Megachurch Attenders report "Not Who You Think They
    Are: The Real Story of People Who Attend America’s Megachurches
    " by
    Scott Thumma and Warren Bird

    This 40-page PDF was just released.  It is an outstanding example of good research and clear writing. 

    Thumma wrote with Dave Travis the excellent book Beyond Megachurch Myths: What We Can Learn from America's Largest Churches (J-B Leadership Network Series) (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2007).  Thumma and Bird work for Hartford Institute of Religious Research and Leadership Network respectively. Thumma has done more research on megachurches than anyone else. 

    Probably the biggest difference between megachurches and other churches that they highlight is that "Megachurch attenders are younger and more of them are single . . . Additionally, they are more educated and wealthier" (Not Who You Think They Are, p. 28).  There are positive and negative ways of interpreting this.  The megachurch supporter could say, "Megachurches are doing something right!  They are attracting more youth, single, educated and wealthy people."  The megachurch critic could say, "The megachurch unfortunately probably makes old, married, uneducated, and poor people feel unwelcome." 

    The findings will be particularly valuable when critics and defenders of the megachurch declare their personal experiences and opinions as statistical facts. 

    This played out in a series of conversations at Leadership Journal's Out of Ur blog and on lots of blogs in December 2008.  During this time, I wrote two posts at Out of Ur:

    Megachurch Misinformation Mega or missional? The stats say both are doing well. by Andy Rowell

    and

    Out of Ur: Missional vs. Attractional: Debating the Research – a post by Andy Rowell and the editors of Leadership Journal

    (I tried to chronicle all the discussions at: 
    Following Dan Kimball's Missional vs. Megachurch conversation)   

    I would encourage the reader of the National Survey of Megachurch Attenders report to note all of the things that megachurches and churches have in common.  There are many common problems that we all need to work on.  For example, Thumma and Bird note, "The Longer People Attend, the
    Less Likely They Are to Report 'Much Growth' in Their Faith" (p. 27). 
    Why is that?  There are a number of ways of interpreting that.  In my opinion, this report is what people hoped they might be able to learn from the Willow Creek Reveal and Follow Me reports but unfortunately without sociological expertise and in conjunction with bungled communication, the Reveal reports ended up causing more confusion than anything else.  (I like Willow Creek but think they made some missteps with the Reveal endeavor–I was frustrated because it made them look worse than they are!  See my Willow Creek REVEAL's second book Follow Me tells us very little).

    This
    Thumma / Bird report does not however take a "and this is what we should do about
    this" approach.  That is up to us in church leadership.

    The National Congregations Study report "American Congregations at the Beginning of the 21st Century" by Mark Chaves

    This 40-page PDF also came out this week.  In my opinion, Duke sociologist Chaves is the most important sociologist of congregations in the United States.  He is author of Congregations in America (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004), overseas the National Congregations Study, and regularly writes at the Call & Response blog at the Faith & Leadership website.

    Here is the summary of findings from page 2. 

    "This report highlights some of the National Congregations Study’s most important findings, including:

    • Most congregations are small but most people are in large congregations.
    • Worship services are becoming more informal.
    • Congregational leaders are still overwhelmingly male.
    • Predominantly white congregations are more ethnically diverse.
    • Congregations embrace technology.
    • Congregations and clergy are getting older.
    • Congregations’ position in the social class structure remains unchanged.
    • Congregations’ involvement in social service activities remains unchanged.
    • Only a small minority of congregations describe themselves as theologically “liberal,” even within the Protestant mainline.
    • Congregations are more tolerant and inclusive than we might expect them to be, even when it comes to hot-button issues.
    • There has been no significant increase in congregational conflict since 1998.
    • Congregations’ involvement in political activities is largely unchanged since 1998." (American Congregations at the Beginning of the 21st Century, p. 2). 

    The issue that I have referred to repeatedly from Chaves's work is the finding the report begins with.  (For example, see my post How to Read Hybels: Book Review of Axiom by Bill Hybels). It is so important!

    • In both 1998 and 2006-07, the average congregation had just 75 regular participants.
    • In both 1998 and 2006-07, the average attendee worshiped in a congregation with about 400 regular participants. (American Congregations at the Beginning of the 21st Century, p. 2.  See p. 3 for the explanation of this statistic).

    Here is only one of the fascinating implications of this concept. 

    "It means that most seminarians come from large churches (since that’s where most people are), but most clergy jobs are in small churches" (American Congregations at the Beginning of the 21st Century, p. 3).

    I only have one small quibble with this statistic and I will share it to show the difficulty of interpreting data.  I wish Chaves would have given us the statistics on "weekly attendance" (which the National Congregation Study has also gathered) rather than "regular participants."  It seems to me this is a more accurate way of describing the size of a church than what number the pastor deems are "regular participants."

    Here are the two questions.  I like the second question better because it seems less susceptible to bias. 

    • Wave II question 13. “How many persons—counting both adults and children—would you say regularly participate in the religious life of your congregation—whether or not they are officially members of your congregation?”
    • Wave II question 52. “What was the total attendance, including both adults and children, at all of the worship services that took place this past weekend, including services on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday?”

    I did the calculations at the National Congregations Study website
    56% of congregations report having less than 100 "regular attendees including
    children."  But just 38% of congregations report having less than 100 in "Total
    attendance for ALL services last weekend."  Apparently, a number of pastors estimated that of the people attending last Sunday, only a smaller percentage are "regular participants" saying something like, "Yes, we had over 125 people in attendance last Sunday but I would only consider 75 to be 'regular participants.'"  It seems to me all of the other sociological research on congregations deals with attendance because this notion of "regular participants" is too subjective.  The pastor who perhaps attracts a large attendance but conscientiously reports a lower number of "regular participants" looks to be ministering to a smaller number of people than he or she really is.  (I of course may be missing something here in my statistical analysis but I think I am right about this). 

    The question of what is more important "membership" (described here in NCS as "regular participants") vs. "attendance" is not new.  For example, the United Methodist Church gives "Average Worship Attendance" while The Presbyterian Church (USA) emphasizes membership statistics (though you can also find attendance statistics).  Sometimes, in the PC(USA) the membership exceeds the number who attend each week.  Other times, it is the opposite.  For example, "Your congregation's reported total membership, 548, was larger than the 2007 PC(USA) average, 205. . . . Your congregation's reported worship attendance, 456, was larger than the 2007 PC(USA) average, 114."  Like I said, I think the people who actually show up is the more important number. ( . . . and my Presbyterian friends mutter about Andy's anabaptist ecclesial instincts . . . but I digress). 

    Eight Warnings for Church Leaders about Using Sociologist Data by Andy Rowell

    All of this information in these reports should be used by the church leader judiciously. 

    For my course for Mark Chaves last fall, I wrote my term paper on how pastors should use sociological data.  (Someday I'd like to publish it–any ideas where?) 

    I will post below the outline for church leaders and consumers of statistics to keep in mind. 

    Warning 1: Theological convictions should determine what gets measured.  Consider measuring both quantity and quality. 

    Warning 2: Statistics are descriptive not prescriptive.

    Warning 3: Correlation does not mean causation.

    Warning 4: It is very difficult to determine the most important causative factor—the right hypothesis—and without it, there will be failed expectations. 

    Warning 5: There are always exceptions. 

    Warning 6: Good social science is very difficult and all of it needs significant peer review.

    Warning 7:  Statistics should also be gathered from outsiders.

    Warning 8: Businesses and other organizations are not necessarily more effective organizations than churches. 

    See also
    Evangelicals Behaving Badly with Statistics
    Mistakes were made.
    Christian Smith | posted 1/01/2007

    See my categories Megachurches and Sociology for more on these topics.
    Or see my topic Ecclesiology for more theological reflection on the church in which I always try to stay cognizant of the sociological data.

    Update June 15, 2009.
    Three stats I have been thinking about a lot so I tweeted about them.  http://twitter.com/AndyRowell

    1. Chaves, "51% [of congregations], with 59% of participants, do not allow women to be full-fledged senior clergy." p. 16.  No wonder women in ministry is such a hot issue.  1/2 of congregations are egalitarian and half are complementarian/traditional!
    2. Chaves, "Only 9% of congregations [in the U.S.] describe themselves as theologically liberal." p. 13.
    3. Thumma, 65% of attenders of megachurches cite "senior pastor" as the most important factor that keeps them at the church. p.18.