Andy Rowell

Category: Sociology

  • 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.

  • Recommended: Jackson Carroll’s God’s Potters: Pastoral Leadership and the Shaping of Congregations

  • Here is my Amazon.com review of:

  • Jackson W. Carroll: God's Potters: Pastoral Leadership and the Shaping of Congregations (Pulpit & Pew)

    Jackson W. Carroll: God’s Potters: Pastoral Leadership and the Shaping of Congregations (Pulpit & Pew) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006).

    • 5.0 out of 5 stars Wise and fascinating data-driven description of what it is like to be a pastor today, June 2, 2009

    By 
    Andrew D. Rowell (Durham, NC) – See all my reviews

    (REAL NAME)

    Cooperating with some of the best academic sociologists of religion in the country, Jackson Carroll orchestrated a comprehensive survey of Christian clergy in the United States in 2001. In God’s Potters, he reports his findings with clarity and wisdom. Carroll wants churches and pastors to thrive so he probes the findings for what church leaders can learn and improve. The book is well-written and the findings supported with impeccable data gathering. Throughout the book, Carroll offers his own suggestions for what clergy and denominations might want to do with the findings but his suggestions are clearly separated from conclusions drawn directly from the data. Moreover, happily, his suggestions are balanced and wise. This is the first book I would suggest people read if they want to understand the realities today of pastoring–both positive and negative.

    Throughout the book, we learn about how women clergy differ from male clergy; how Catholic, Mainline Protestant, Conservative Protestant, and Historic Black clergy differ; how urban and rural clergy differ; younger and older clergy differ; etc. with regard to: salary, hours worked, job satisfaction, perceived effectiveness, physical health, seminary training, leadership style and conflict management.

    God’s Potters should be required reading for all faculty members at theological schools. It would do much to bridge the seminary-church gap.

    But most importantly this book should be read in seminary “Pastoral Ethics,” “Parish / Congregational Ministry and Leadership,” and “Supervised Ministry / Field Education / Practicum” courses. The book will probably be neither inspiring nor discouraging for the person considering ordained ministry but it will be enlightening: “Oh, now I now see what a pastor does and the challenges they face!” For young people who are often broadsided by the “reality” of the church, the orientation that God’s Potters provides is a very good thing. They will be able to see the possible pitfalls that they face but also encouraged by Carroll that many clergy–especially those who see the pitfalls–thrive.

    Your Tags: pastoring, ordained ministry, pastoral leadership, pastoral ministry, clergy, survey data, sociology, study, church leadership

  • The research behind my post at Out of Ur: Missional vs. Attractional: Debating the Research

    See the post I coauthored with the editors of Leadership Journal at the Out of Ur blog:

    Missional vs. Attractional: Debating the Research
    What do the numbers say? It depends who you ask.

    by Url Scaramanga & Andy Rowell

    Summary:

    In the comments of a recent post, Scot McKnight, David Fitch, Dan Kimball and Alan Hirsch argued about what the church stats say.  They called for evidence.  So in this post, I lay out some quantitative data that is relevant to the discussion.  (See my Following Dan Kimball's Missional vs. Megachurch conversation to get caught up on the chronology of the discussion).  The evidence I present is not decisive for "either side" but it sheds light on what we know and don't know.  My point is merely that we need to be careful about making broad claims about where the church is growing and declining.  I agree that we need to be reasonably informed about sociology but that our direction comes from theology. 

     

    Here are the footnotes that they edited out:

    Scott Thumma and Dave Travis, Beyond Megachurch Myths: What We Can Learn from America's Largest Churches (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2007), 124-125.

    Stanley Presser and Mark Chaves, "Is Religious Service Attendance Declining?" Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 46 (2007): 417.

    Rodney Stark, What Americans Really Believe (Waco: Baylor, 2008), 14.

    Scott Thumma and Dave Travis, Beyond Megachurch Myths: What We Can Learn from America's Largest Churches (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2007), 8-9.

    Notes about interpreting David Olson's The American Church in Crisis statistics:

    As I have noted before, David Olson's research is principally based on statistics from 20 or so denominations.  It tells us something but not necessarily about all churches in the U.S.

    The quote in the article from Olson was not suggested by me but by the Leadership Journal editors.  It is from the following piece:

    Rebecca Barnes and Lindy Lowry, "The American Church in Crisis", Outreach magazine, May/June 2006.

    The claims by Olson are also made in his book:

    David T. Olson, The American Church in Crisis: Groundbreaking Research Based on a National Database of over 200,000 Churches (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008).  

    Olson tallies together headcounts from denominations and based on that argues that the attendance number is fairly stable but the American population is growing.  First, I do not think his numbers adequately represent independent churches and smaller denominations.  Second, I know of no other researcher who depends on headcounts as Olson does with so little clarification about establishing a comprehensive methodology.  

    D. Michael Lindsay, assistant professor of sociology at Rice University, notes in response to Olson's research:

    "Counting heads to estimate weekly worship service attendance is far less reliable than estimates based on survey responses . . . For researchers to generalize head counts to the entire adult population, they must be conducted as an exhaustive consensus or a representative sample."

    D. Michael Lindsay, "Gallup's Research Remains More Reliable Than Counting Heads," Rev. Magazine (Mar/Apr 2008): 59.

    It should be said that I appreciate Olson's research for what it does tell us and I used it in my previous post "Megachurch Misinformation" at Out of Ur.  For example, one can look at the church planting statistics from 10 denominations.  These stats do not tell us about church planting in America comprehensively but give a nice snapshot. 

    Additional notes about young adults:

    I do not mean in the Out of Ur post to paint a rosy picture of American Christianity.  As Andy Crouch notes in the comments, there is no room for complacency.

    Robert Wuthnow points out that frequent church attendance among young adults is down from 31 percent in the 1970s to 25 percent more recently. 

    Wuthnow writes,

    Specifically, 6 percent of younger adults [age 21-45] in the recent period [1998, 2000, 2002 GSS] claim that they attend religious services more than once a week, compared with 7 percent in the earlier period [1972-1976], and 14 percent in the in the recent period claim they attend every week down from 19 percent previously.  At the other extreme, 20 percent say they never attend, compared with only 14 percent earlier.  How should we think about these changes?  On the one hand, it is important not to exaggerate their significance.  In many ways, younger adults at the start of the twenty-first century are like younger adults in the early 1970s.  If we count as 'regular' attenders, those who participate nearly every week or more often, only a quarter (25 percent) of younger adults can be considered regular attenders now, and fewer than a third (31 percent) were in the early 1970s.  The majority of younger adults either attend religious service rarely, or if they attend more than that, are hardly regular enough to be the core of any congregation.  On the other hand, the fact that regular attenders now characterize only 25 percent of younger adults, whereas this proportion was 31 percent in the 1970s represents a decline that cannot easily be dismissed.

    Robert Wuthnow, After the Baby Boomers: How Twenty- and Thirty-Somethings Are Shaping the Future of American Religion (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007), 52-53.

    Conclusion:

    I love all kinds of churches.  All need to be continually evaluated by good theology. 

    As I said in my earlier post Megachurch Misinformation, 

    All of us want "more and better disciples of Jesus" (a phrase I first
    heard from Brian McLaren). In the Church of England, they are talking
    about a "mixed economy" of "fresh expressions" of church being a good
    thing–in other words different churches will reach different people. I
    am hopeful about both missional and megachurch expressions of church.

    Related:

    See also my posts:

    Weekly U.S.A. Church Attendance: The Sociologists Weigh In

    and

    Following Dan Kimball's Missional vs. Megachurch conversation

    and my posts in the Sociology category.