come back churches thesis
DESCRIPTION
Thesis: Come Back ChurchesTRANSCRIPT
AN ANALYSIS OF FACTORS LEADING
TO THE REVITALIZATION OF
COMEBACK CHURCHES
__________________
A Dissertation
Presented to
the Faculty of
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
__________________
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Missiology
__________________
by
John Michael Dodson
December 2006
Copyright © 2006 John Michael Dodson
All rights reserved. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has permission to reproduce and disseminate this document in any form by any means for purposes chosen by the Seminary, including, without limitation, preservation or instruction.
APPROVAL SHEET
AN ANALYSIS OF FACTORS LEADING
TO THE REVITALIZATION OF
COMEBACK CHURCHES
John Michael Dodson Read and Approved by:
__________________________________________ George H. Martin (Chairperson) __________________________________________ Stephen D. Drake __________________________________________ J.D. Payne
Date _______________________________
To Kelly,
my support, my encourager, my sweetie;
to three sweet boys;
and to my parents,
John and Phyllis Dodson,
always giving and supportive
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
State of the Church in North America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Background of Church Revitalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Background of the Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Methodology of the Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2. REVIEW OF SOME CHURCH GROWTH CONCEPTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Spiritual Fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Evangelism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Lay Ministry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Small Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Worship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
v
Chapter Page
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3. COLLECTION AND PRESENTATION OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Numerical Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Verbal Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
4. ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
General Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Surveyed Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Summary Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
5. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Comeback Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Comeback Obstacles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Other Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Appendix
1. COMEBACK CHURCHES PHONE SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
2. COMEBACK PHONE GUIDELINES FOR SBC CHURCHES . . . . . . . . . 134
3. COMEBACK PHONE GUIDELINES FOR NON SBC CHURCHES . . . . 136
4. E-MAIL LETTER TO DENOMINATIONAL REPRESENTATIVES . . . . 138
5. FINAL LIST OF DENOMINATIONS SURVEYED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
6. INITIAL DENOMINATIONAL CONTACT LIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
vi
Appendix
7. QUESTIONS FOR FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
8. RENEWED BELIEF SAMPLE RESPONSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
9. EVANGELISM SAMPLE RESPONSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
10. LAY MINISTRY SAMPLE RESPONSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
11. SMALL GROUPS SAMPLE RESPONSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
12. MARKETING SAMPLE RESPONSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
13. FACILITIES SAMPLE RESPONSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
14. LEADERSHIP SAMPLE RESPONSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
15. TIME MANAGEMENTS SAMPLE RESPONSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
16. STAFF CHANGES SAMPLE RESPONSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AG Assemblies of God AM Wor average worship attendance BGC Baptist General Conference Bi-voc bi-vocational CABC Continental Atlantic Baptist Convention CGM Church Growth Movement CMA The Christian and Missionary Alliance COG Churches of God, General Conference CON The Nazarene Church EFCA The Evangelical Free Church of America FSQ The Foursquare Church JSSR Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion NAMB North American Mission Board SBC Southern Baptist Convention VBS Vacation Bible School WES The Wesleyan Church
viii
LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page
1. Percentage of Respondents by Denomination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 2. Education Level Achieved by Comeback Leaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 3. Rating of Five Components of Vibrant Faith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 4. Rating of Six Church Growth Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 5. Rating of Worship Moods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 6. Rating of Preaching Styles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 7. Rating of Various Factors That Changed during Comeback . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
ix
PREFACE
While this project bears my name, I would not have been able to complete it on
my own. George Martin, my supervising professor, spent countless hours pouring over
this project; he challenged, corrected, and encouraged me every step of the way.
Professors Steven Drake and J.D. Payne also helped in the process of making this project
the best it could be. I am very grateful for their input and participation in this project.
In addition, Ed Stetzer and the NAMB Research Department provided
extremely valuable help and insight. This project would not have been nearly of the same
size and scope without their involvement. I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to
work with them on this project.
Many people have prayed for me throughout the duration of this project. I
have needed those prayers of encouragement and support. This has been a journey of
endurance and perseverance. The prayers of many family and friends in Christ have
made a difference in the completion of this project.
The people of New Hope Community Church have been loving and supportive
toward me and my family. We have been blessed by the opportunity to serve there and
be part of such a wonderful church family. In addition, my parents have demonstrated
love, support, and encouragement during the entirety of this endeavor. Their consistent
willingness to give helps provide a solid foundation, which enables success.
x
My wife, Kelly, and our three wonderful boys have endured through the five
years that it took to complete this degree as well. Though they have sacrificed in this
process, I have always felt loved and encouraged to finish what I had started. They have
prayed for and encouraged me every step of the way. Words cannot express my gratitude
to Kelly for her consistent love, support, and encouragement; she always maintains a
warm and loving atmosphere at home. She is a wonderful blessing from God.
Praise God for His faithfulness. I am confident that finishing this project is
part of the work that He is completing in me (Phil 1:6). I am grateful for His persevering
grace and mercy. To Him be the glory for ever and ever.
John M. Dodson
Meadville, Pennsylvania December 2006
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
For years, various writers and researchers (many of whom are identified in
chap. 2) have reported that the North American church was anemic and lethargic at best.
As early as the mid-1960s, some mainline denominations were apparently in trouble.
Peter Wagner stated, “In the ten-year period from 1965 to 1975 the Episcopal church lost
17 percent of its membership or 575,000 persons. The United Presbyterians lost 12
percent or 375,000 members. The United Methodists lost 10 percent or 1,100,000
members, and so on.”1
In more recent years, even evangelical churches have shown signs of plateau
and decline. In his book Vision America, Aubrey Malphurs asserted that much of the
perceived church growth in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s was actually due primarily to the
redistribution of believers, not genuine church growth. He stated, “The problems of the
church in the 1980s carry over into the 1990s. The church as a whole continues to
experience decline and the unchurched increase.”2
1C. Peter Wagner, Leading Your Church to Growth (Ventura, CA: Regal
Books, 1984), 31-32. 2Aubrey Malphurs, Vision America: A Strategy for Reaching a Nation (Grand
Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), 62.
2
State of the Church in North America
Most recently, the Leavell Center at New Orleans Baptist Theological
Seminary did a study revealing that only 11 percent of Southern Baptist churches were
experiencing healthy growth. The Leavell Center used the following criteria to define
healthy churches:
1. The church experienced 10% total membership growth over five years.
2. The church baptized at least one person during the two years of the study.
3. These churches needed 35 or fewer members each year to baptize one new convert (a member-to-baptism ratio of 35 or less in the final year of the study).
4. For the final year of the study, the percentage of growth that was conversion growth must be at least 25%.3
Moreover, the number of baptisms in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) has been
relatively flat for the last fifty years.4
Other statistics and research have pointed to the anemic nature of the North
American church. In 1993, Wade Clark Roof reported on the spiritual lives of drop out
boomers: “Less than one in four have returned to active participation in a place of
worship. . . . 80% say you can be a good Christian without attending church.”5 More
recently, George Barna’s research indicated that 95 to 100 million Americans of all ages
3Ed Stetzer, “Stirring the Waters,” On Mission (Winter 2005) [on-line];
accessed October 2005; available from http://www.onmission.com/site/c.cnKHIPNuEoG/ b.830521/k.D281/Stirring_the_waters.htm; Internet.
4Ed Stetzer, “The Missional Nature of the Church and the Future of Southern
Baptist Convention Churches,” (paper presented to the Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry conference, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 12 February 2005).
5Wade Clark Roof, “The Four Spiritual Styles of Baby Boomers,” USA
Weekend, March 1993, quoted in Aubrey Malphurs, Vision America, 63.
3
were unchurched6 (approximately one-third of the population) an estimate that was based
upon a very generous definition of “unchurched.”7 In another study, the Barna Group
explained, “Since 1991, the adult population in the United States has grown by 15%.
During that same period the number of adults who do not attend church has nearly
doubled, rising from 39 million to 75 million—a 92% increase!”8 Overall, Barna’s
research has not indicated that churches in North America were healthy and growing.
It has been noted that the church in North America has needed to find the
pathway to healthy evangelistic growth. How can this comeback be achieved? Answers
to this question may be gleaned from churches that have made recent comebacks.9 In
utilizing this information, the primary methodology of this study has been to analyze the
responses of comeback churches and their leaders in regard to some church growth
principles. That study has provided significant quantifiable data. A secondary purpose
6George Barna, Grow Your Church from the Outside in (Ventura, CA: Regal
Books from Gospel Light, 2002), 23. 7Ibid. Barna stated, “We define a person as unchurched if he or she has not
attended a Christian church service at any time during the past six months, other than special events such as weddings and funerals.” Many other people exist somewhere between that definition and active membership in a particular local church.
8George Barna, “Number of Unchurched Adults Has Nearly Doubled Since
1991,” The Barna Update (4 May 2004) [on-line]; accessed 15 January 2006; available from http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID= 163; Internet.
9In this study, a comeback church is being defined as a church that has been
revitalized numerically after an extended period of plateau and decline (specific comeback criteria are given on p. 17 of this dissertation). While there are spiritual dynamics involved in revitalization, no spiritual criteria were established for inclusion in this study (see also the “Background of the Proposal” and “Limitations of the Study”).
4
of this study was to identify any external factors that might have impacted the renewal of
these comeback churches.
This specific project focused on conducting an informal, not a technically
scientific study of churches that had experienced at least 5 years of plateau and/or decline
followed by 2 to 5 years of evangelistic growth after 2000.10 Through the survey
process, 324 survey responses were gathered from churches in ten different
denominations. Over twenty-five thousand bits of data were collected.
The inquiries were based upon some key factors that may have initiated or
influenced the revitalization process of these particular local churches. If attitude or
action changes motivated the comeback within a church and/or among its leaders, the
survey sought to identify these changes. Thus, the study included some church growth
issues such as spiritual dynamics, evangelism, worship, and leadership.
All factors listed above may have impacted a church’s growth, decline,
comeback, or stagnation and were factors that could be measured qualitatively and
quantitatively within local churches. Studying those churches that have changed
direction in recent years was an important endeavor. Then, the “window of change”
could be examined; the period of transition from plateau/decline to comeback/growth was
critical. Studying churches that have recently experienced both dynamics revealed
insights that should help other churches understand how to move in the same direction.
10For the purposes of this study, evangelistic growth is being generally defined
as increasing attendance and a membership to baptism ratio of 35:1 or lower.
5
Background of Church Revitalization
Biblically, the need for church revitalization can be observed in chapters two
and three of the book of Revelation, when Jesus spoke through John to the key churches
in Asia Minor in existence in the first century. Since its inception, the church has
displayed a tendency to drift toward mediocrity, stagnation, and decline. Throughout
history, the growth of the church has ebbed and flowed.
In more recent times, the leaders and proponents of the Church Growth
Movement (CGM) revealed the need for church revitalization in the North American
context. The concepts and principles of church growth were originally defined by
Donald McGavran in the mid to late 1950s and grew in emphasis over the next three
decades. The key person in developing the principles of church growth in the North
American context was Peter Wagner, a disciple of McGavran. Church growth referred to
“all that is involved in bringing men and women who do not have a personal relationship
to Jesus Christ into fellowship with Him and into responsible church membership.”11
Thom Rainer defined church growth as “that discipline which seeks to understand
through biblical, sociological, historical, and behavioral study, why churches grow or
decline. True church growth takes place when ‘Great Commission’ disciples are added
and are evidenced by responsible church membership.”12
11C. Peter Wagner, Your Church Can Grow, rev. ed. (Ventura, CA: Regal
Books, 1984), 14. 12Thom S. Rainer, The Book of Church Growth—History, Theology, and
Principles (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993), 21.
6
The movement itself grew out of a desire to reinvigorate the worldwide church
in the practice of true evangelism and missions. At the time McGavran began to develop
the CGM principles, missions and evangelism had been redefined, in part, by the World
Council of Churches to refer to anything and everything “good” that Christians could do
individually and collectively. Charles Van Engen explained,
McGavran stressed Church Growth over against the dominant ecumenical view of the 1950’s and 1960’s, spearheaded by J. C. Hoekendijk, which downplayed, and nearly negated, the importance of church in favor of a strong sociopolitical and economic agenda of social transformation. McGavran’s denomination was a charter member of the World Council of Churches, and McGavran feared that the social concerns of the ecumenical movement would eclipse a committed emphasis on the conversion to Jesus Christ of the (then) two billion people who were not yet Christians.13
Thus, in addition to establishing principles for evangelism and church planting, the CGM
became a way of seeking to renew and revitalize existing churches both within North
America and around the world and lead them to rediscover their true God-given
evangelistic and missional purpose. The CGM discussed and outlined many principles
that would help lead to church revitalization.
When the CGM started taking hold in North America, numerous books and
articles were compiled that described church growth concepts and how they could be
applied in local churches. Several themes developed in these church growth writings that
sought to define the pathway to church renewal and healthy growth. Key revitalization
themes included, but were not limited to, the following: spiritual fire, evangelism,
13Paul E. Engle and Gary L. McIntosh, eds., Evaluating the Church Growth Movement: 5 Views (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 55.
7
leadership, lay mobilization, small groups, and worship. While these themes have been
explored more thoroughly in chapter two, they have been summarized briefly here.
In some of his writings such as How Churches Grow and Understanding
Church Growth, Donald McGavran discussed the importance of church growth leaders
and churches developing and maintaining a genuine spiritual fire. This concept was
foundational to church growth and was evidenced by vibrant faith, strategic prayer,
forgiveness and loving service, and intense belief.
In regard to evangelism, McGavran and Win Arn (in How to Grow a Church)
and also Peter Wagner (in Leading Your Church to Growth) discussed the need for
churches to be intentionally evangelistic. This theme was rooted in the theological
premise that God was the One who seeks the lost with the express purpose of finding
them. Therefore, churches that wanted to grow had to be committed to intentionally
seeking and finding those people who were spiritually lost.
Another theme that permeated church growth literature was leadership. If
churches were going to grow, they had to have leaders who were willing to climb out on
the limb of leadership. In books such as Leading Your Church to Growth and Your
Church Can Grow, Peter Wagner discussed this theme. Some components of leadership
were rejecting slow or no growth thinking, being a lovable and active overseer, sharing
ministry, and planning for growth.
The next theme was directly connected to the components of leadership. In
order to lead effectively, congregational leaders had to mobilize the spiritually gifted
people within each congregation. From the writings of Peter Wagner (Your Spiritual
Gifts Can Help Your Church Grow), Darrell Robinson (Total Church Life), and Frank
8
Tillapaugh (Unleashing the Church), this theme was outlined in terms of the need to help
believers discover their spiritual gifts, mobilize people and their gifts, and empower
people to use their gifts.
As the CGM expanded, two other themes developed as key factors for
revitalization. One was the need to develop and utilize a process of small groups to build
community, effectively care for people, and support the work of evangelism. The other
theme that developed was worship because worship services are a primary avenue
through which unchurched people often investigate the church. These two themes, as
well as those mentioned above, have been explained more thoroughly in the next chapter.
One of the key questions that defined the church growth movement was, “Why
do some churches grow and others do not?” The answer to this question, McGavran
believed, would lead to practical insights that would unlock the great potential of church
growth among existing churches and among the unreached people groups of the world.
Those serious about joining God in seeking and saving those who were lost had to be
willing to ask and answer this question and make necessary changes in their outreach
strategies, especially when minimal to negative church growth exists. The aim of this
study was to ask why the comeback churches were growing.
The CGM sought to change the landscape of how missions, evangelism, and
church growth were done all over the world, including North America. That process
started by identifying a key problem in regard to the lack of church growth:
However, engaged in many good activities, Christians often take the growth of the church for granted. They neither pray earnestly for it nor work systematically at it. They assume it will take place automatically as Christians study the Bible, do good to others, and worship God. As a result, in the midst of huge numbers of receptive men and women, many churches stop growing and become static enclaves of comfortable middle-class Christians. These feed the hungry, visit the sick, clothe
9
the naked, and build attractive houses of worship, train leaders, and influence society for good, but they do not grow. The dynamism of the early church does not dwell in them. . . . Church growth has been assumed and is, alas, not occurring.14
In this statement, McGavran clearly described a connection between church
growth and church revitalization. Many churches were busy doing many good things and
not growing. Those churches needed to rediscover the dynamism of the early church. As
stated in the introduction to this chapter, the North American church has needed to be
renewed and revitalized because it has been in a pattern of plateau and decline for several
decades.
Statement of the Problem
The purpose of this project was to study and analyze the causes and nature of
church revitalization as identified by the leaders of comeback churches—how did some
churches make a comeback? This writer has believed that the comeback process has
often been extremely difficult and draining, and that few churches have actually been
able to achieve the goal of making a comeback after experiencing a significant period of
plateau/decline. However, this writer has believed that if this study could provide some
kind of general plan or blueprint for stagnant churches to follow, maybe more would be
willing to risk making a comeback.
Unfortunately, little scholarly literature has addressed the issue of comeback
churches, although some does, such as George Barna’s Turnaround Churches and
Christian Schwarz’s Natural Church Development. Most recently, Thom Rainer
discussed this subject in his book entitled Breakout Churches. While his book was a very
14Donald A. McGavran, Understanding Church Growth, ed. C. Peter Wagner, rev. 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), xii-xiii.
10
definitive work in regard to church growth and church revitalization, it was narrower in
scope and application than this study. Rainer’s book focused on tracking and analyzing
13 larger churches (alongside 39 comparison churches) over many years from several
denominations. This comeback study was focused on 324 churches of all sizes from 10
denominations over a shorter period of time. Also, the criteria for inclusion in this study
and Rainer’s study differed. In addition, this comeback study was a quantitative study
with qualitative elements while Rainer’s work was mainly a qualities interview study.
Also, in Breakout Churches, Rainer utilized a model of research and application based
largely on a secular book entitled Good to Great by Jim Collins. This comeback study
was based mainly on principles identified from a study of early church growth literature.
Therefore, this project traced the development of some church growth and
church revitalization principles as they were espoused by the leaders and proponents of
the CGM. These factors were used as the basis upon which comeback churches were
evaluated. In other words, the champions of the CGM proclaimed that certain
characteristics must be present in order for healthy church growth to take place.
If the writer’s assumptions are correct, based upon his reading of church
growth literature, the identified church growth factors should be evident in comeback
churches. These general factors should be found in churches that experience
revitalization after a period of plateau/decline. This study will test that premise. In
addition, this study will seek to identify any other important factors that might contribute
to church revitalization.
After evaluating comeback churches based upon the identified church growth
themes, many observations can be made based upon the experiences and successes of
11
comeback churches and their leaders. Thus, the primary methodology of this dissertation
will be to analyze the responses of comeback churches and their leaders. Within that
study is substantial quantifiable information. An additional purpose of this dissertation is
to identify and analyze any other external factors that have impacted the revitalization of
these comeback churches.
This project seeks to answer several specific questions with regard to
comeback churches. These questions include, but are not limited to the following:
1. Are the selected church growth themes outlined in the next chapter (i.e.—spiritual fire, evangelism, leadership, etc.) all that is necessary for making a comeback?
2. Are comebacks the result of more intentional prayer, increased evangelistic efforts, leadership changes, particular preaching and worship styles, etc.?
3. Are there intangible factors such as the sovereignty of God, unpredictable demographic changes, etc. that motivate comebacks?
4. Are there defined principles that churches can use in any context?
Beyond the comeback churches’ analysis, this study contains many variables
that can be utilized for the purpose of analyzing plateaued and declining churches. Local
churches should be able to evaluate how they compare to comeback churches. Such
comparisons may include the following issues:
1. This writer’s own ministry experience indicates that plateaued/declining churches can feel defeated and assume that nothing can be done to turn their situation around or that there is something special or unique about growing churches that makes it easy for them to grow. Does the survey data point in this direction? Is revitalization just a matter of spiritual “luck” or blessing?15
2. Does any correlation exist between a pastor’s level of educational achievement and his role as the leader of a comeback church?
15Some church growth proponents such as Peter Wagner and George Barna
have similarly noted issues such as the small church mentality, slow or no-growth thinking, and the negative attitudes that can develop when a church loses its momentum and wallows in plateau and decline.
12
3. Do comeback churches employ particular methods or techniques that increase attendance and conversion growth?
4. Do advertising and/or facility changes impact revitalization?
5. Are outside resources, assistance, and training vital in making a comeback?
6. Does a church need to become culturally relevant in worship and preaching style to engineer a comeback?
7. Do other factors make vital contributions in comebacks?
This project seeks to answer these questions after analyzing 324 comeback churches with
the intent that the insights gained would assist in the revitalization of many other
churches.
Background of the Proposal
This writer’s interest in comeback churches has sprung from a love for both
church planting and church revitalization. As this writer’s knowledge of church growth
principles has increased, he has realized that a spiritual awakening (a spontaneous
movement of large numbers of people coming to Christ) could take place in North
America and could happen through both church starting and church renewal. As existing
churches are renewed, they could become missional and seek to plant new churches. At
least, that should result from applying church growth principles.
Even through involvement in church planting, this writer has had to lead a
church plant to revitalization twice—once because the church plant pastor resigned soon
after its launch and a second time after a merger. In many ways, experience has been a
great teacher. This learning process has entailed many disappointments and victories and
has led to the question, “What principles can be learned from comeback churches that
13
might guide pastors and churches (that want to grow and change) down the path of
revitalization?”
Answering the previous question could help remove some obstacles for leaders
and local churches who are struggling to move from plateau/decline to growth/comeback.
In addition, knowing that the church in North America is stagnant at best, this writer is
moved by the question, “What can be done to change the direction of churches that are
merely existing or heading toward non-existence?” In essence, what factors can be
identified that are essential for church comebacks? What moves a church off the path of
plateau/decline and back onto the road of renewal?
Success can be difficult to define in any study, particularly one that involves
spiritual things. However, comebacks must be measured both for the sake of this study
and for an accurate analysis of church revitalization principles and possibilities.
Therefore, baptismal ratios and attendance figures have been used as the initial
identification marks of an effective comeback. These criteria have been chosen because
they were common benchmarks that have been used to indicate church growth both
historically and biblically. However, with regard to a few of the denominations, the
benchmarks had to be adjusted due to differences in belief, ministry approach, and record
keeping.
This study built upon the survey process and focused on the impact of the
identified church growth principles upon 324 comeback churches. This dissertation also
sought to discover any other factors that could be identified which influenced these
churches toward revitalization. Moreover, the study sought to discover those factors that
impacted the effectiveness of church renewal.
14
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study
This study had one external limitation and several delimitations. This study
was limited by the fact that it does rely upon the accuracy of information provided by
those surveyed. No independent sources verified the data given by respondents.
Independent verification could have included contacting individual denominational
districts to confirm reported numbers and/or visiting the churches and examining their
records. However, in most cases, denominational agencies identified or suggested the
churches that met the established criteria for comeback churches. Thus, the results were
assumed to be close to accurate in the large majority of cases. Independent verification
would have been a poor use of time and resources.
Several delimitations were also placed on this study by the writer. First, this
project addressed only the results found within the 324 respondents. All comeback
churches were not identified and studied. Instead, this project was a study that contacted
a specific group of churches and their leaders whose names were provided by
denominational entities.
Second, this study focused on churches making a comeback that were
experiencing a significant increase in growth through conversion as measured by
increasing attendance and a decreasing membership to baptism ratio (or similar
conversion criteria depending upon the denomination). Churches may have grown in
numbers through transfer growth. Those churches were not the focus of this study.
Third, this study also excluded all other churches that were plateaued or
declining and did not meet the criteria established for evangelistic growth stated earlier.
15
While studying these churches might have provided for an important comparison study,
the limits of time and space did not allow for such an undertaking.
Fourth, this study did not include or exclude churches based upon how a given
church was doing overall spiritually. While other studies may have sought to define
specific criteria to measure the spiritual health of churches for inclusion, this study did
not. It would have been much more difficult to establish inclusion criteria to measure the
revitalization of churches spiritually because spiritual dynamics are more subjective.
However, the numerical criteria established were legitimate benchmarks and were one
measure of the spiritual health and vitality of congregations.
Fifth, this study did not survey or evaluate the qualifying comeback churches
based upon every church growth factor. Certain general principles or themes were
identified through reading and researching the writings of many CGM leaders and
proponents. The church growth factors or themes selected to build the survey instrument
were gleaned from a wide array of church growth literature up to and through the 1980s.
The factors selected were the ones deemed most prominent by this writer within the
church growth literature based upon reading and research. While the writings of the
CGM and its proponents have been broad and deep, they highlighted some church growth
themes more than others. In addition, it was not feasible to conduct such an exhaustive
study for this project or for this writer to cover every theme of church growth.
Sixth, this study did not survey or evaluate the qualifying comeback churches
based upon every component of any particular church growth theme. For example, one of
the most prevalent topics of church growth has been evangelism. With regard to
evangelism, numerous components could have been discussed and surveyed—the
16
homogeneous unit principle; the principle of receptivity; different kinds of growth such
as membership, internal, expansion, extension, and bridging; God as the Seeker and
Finder; how evangelism relates to sociology and anthropology; etc. A research project
could have been done on one of these components or all of them in relationship to
evangelism. However, the entire scope of evangelism was not the sole focus of this
study. This study sought to track several church growth themes and analyze how those
themes interacted together within a group of turnaround churches.
Seventh, and finally, this survey sought the responses of pastors or key staff
people. This survey did not seek to survey lay people. While this would have provided a
different perspective on the comeback process of the churches involved, very few lay
people were respondents. Almost all of the respondents were the pastors of comeback
churches. Another companion study could be done to obtain the perceptions of lay
people in these comeback churches, but that was not the focus of this study.
Attention in this study focused on answering one overarching, but key
question, “How did the identified church growth factors contribute to the comeback of
324 churches and impact their revitalization?” This study attempted to answer the above
question within the parameters identified.
Methodology of the Research
This study examined the process of church revitalization that occurred in 324
comeback churches from ten denominations. Chapter two has summarized some
components of church revitalization as defined by the proponents and writers within the
CGM. These selected factors were the key criteria utilized in surveying comeback
churches and their leaders.
17
Following the identification of the potential elements for church revitalization,
a phone survey16 (see Appendix 1) was developed based mainly on some of the
components for church revitalization outlined by the leaders of the CGM and also some
adaptations from a survey instrument found at www.comebackchurches.com. Then,
various denominational leaders were contacted (see Appendix 4) in order to compile a list
of comeback churches based upon the following criteria:
1. The church experienced 5 years of plateau and/or decline since 1995 (worship attendance grew less than 10 percent in a five year period).
2. The plateau/decline was followed by significant growth over the past 2-5 years which included:
a. A membership to baptism (or conversion) ratio of 35:1 or lower each year and
b. At least a 10% increase in attendance each year.
After the list of comeback churches was compiled, members of the NAMB
research department and this writer examined the impact of these church growth
principles upon 324 comeback churches. The survey process involved conducting
hundreds of phone surveys in which each church leader was asked a series of questions to
determine how church growth concepts led to the renewal of that church. The responses
from each church were collected and analyzed in conjunction with the other respondents
by collecting and comparing numerical data and verbal responses. This writer helped
with some of the phone surveys and was responsible for recording all data and survey
responses. This writer was the collector, maintainer, and analyzer of the data until the
process was complete.
16Definition of several survey terms: “Comeback Connection”—whether the pastor’s tenure appears to coincide with the comeback; “Survey ID”—number given to each surveyed church; “YG”—years of consecutive growth after plateau/decline.
18
The survey process began upon faculty supervisor approval. Then, survey
responses were solicited over the next several months. All survey results were compiled
by the end of spring in 2006. As the surveys were completed, the responses were
calculated, analyzed, and compared.
Once this process was complete, the comeback efforts of 324 churches were
evaluated by ranking the potential factors involved in comeback churches based upon
survey responses. All the responses in each statistical category (using a scale of 1 to 5)
were totaled and then divided by the number of respondents. This scaling system gave
each category a number ranking between 1.0 and 5.0. This ranking revealed which
factors comeback church leaders identified as most critical for church renewal versus less
critical.
In addition, this project revealed some common characteristics and strategies
that can be found among comeback churches that do not fit within the potential factors of
church revitalization. These responses have been listed and analyzed to discover
common themes or responses. For example, valuable insights were discovered by
analyzing some of the resources, strategies, methods, and books utilized by comeback
leaders. Also, valuable insights were learned by examining whether or not facilities or
geographical location had an impact in a significant number of comeback situations.
Also, as the survey process was being conducted, the need to analyze certain
characteristics and findings further became apparent. Therefore, a set of questions was
developed to conduct follow-up interviews with some of the respondents. These
questions have been listed in Appendix 7. Some of the results from these follow-up
interviews were used to provide further analysis and insights in chapter four.
19
This study revealed some key factors that were necessary for church
revitalization to take place. In addition, it evaluated whether all the selected church
growth principles identified from the writings of the CGM were necessary for churches to
make a comeback. In the next chapter, some church growth concepts espoused within the
writings of the CGM have been described in a more comprehensive fashion.
20
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF SOME CHURCH GROWTH CONCEPTS As the CGM began to take hold in the North American context, the number of
books and literature seeking to espouse and apply church growth concepts began to
multiply. Within these writings, several specific themes began to emerge which sought
to define the pathway to healthy church growth and revitalization. Some key concepts or
themes of church growth contained within these writings included, but were not limited
to, the following: spiritual fire, evangelism, leadership, lay ministry, small groups, and
worship.
These concepts were selected based upon reading about and researching the
CGM through the 1980s. This writer initially wrote a research paper on this subject to
fulfill the requirements for an independent study in the history of missions. These
concepts were the key overarching themes that stood out to this writer within the initial
writings of the movement and as the CGM developed within the North American context.
Evangelism, leadership, lay ministry, and small groups were concepts found in many of
the titles of church growth books. The concept of spiritual fire was found in two of
McGavran’s seminal writings—How Churches Grow and Understanding Church
Growth. Then, the theme of vibrant faith was eventually expressed in Rainer’s Book of
Church Growth. The concept of worship did not begin to receive much attention until the
1980s, but at that point, worship began to surface as a key theme in regard to church
21
growth in the North American context. Therefore, these six concepts were selected and
used to assess comeback churches through a survey process. In the following pages,
these themes will be explored as they are espoused within the writings of some church
growth leaders and proponents.
Spiritual Fire
In his book How Churches Grow, Donald McGavran stated, “The growth of
the church is always brought about by the action of the Holy Spirit. . . . The concern of
Christians today must be to understand the workings of the Spirit and to be open to his
leading.”1 McGavran made his belief very clear that the underlying and overriding
principle of church growth was a reliance upon the action of God by his Spirit. In
relationship to this reality, McGavran described several aspects of human interaction with
God that resulted in a divine spiritual fire—vibrant faith, strategic prayer, forgiveness and
loving service, and intensity of belief.
Vibrant Faith
In order for the church to reach the unreached and grow in a vibrant fashion,
missionaries, pastors, and followers of Jesus Christ who possessed a fervent faith were
needed. Vibrant faith required the kind of faith relationship with Jesus Christ that would
radically expand across relational bridges and result in conversion growth. Moreover,
McGavran stated,
Fervency, however, is not the sole factor. If the church at Antioch had not channelled resources to the ripe synagogue communities of Cyprus, Pamphylia, and
1Donald Anderson McGavran, How Churches Grow: The New Frontiers of
Mission (New York: Friendship Press, 1966), 55.
22
Pisidia, its fervency alone would not have placed congregations there. Fervent faith is like sunshine. Without it crops can’t grow. With it—and rain, good soil, and skillful farming—crops grow abundantly.2
Faith has been the indispensable ingredient for true church growth. Without faith, it has
been impossible to please God and experience church growth. “If Christian people do
not look ahead and by their faith see their church growing, it in all probability will not
grow well. . . . Wanting to grow and planning for growth is simply one tangible way of
applying biblical faith.”3 Consequently, vibrant faith did result in setting goals for the
things that have not yet been accomplished in regard to church growth, both personal and
congregational.
Strategic Prayer
During the decade of the 1980s, the proponents of the CGM began to respond
to the criticism that the movement was mainly about pragmatic methodologies.
McGavran explained, “The decade of the 1980’s has seen an increasingly higher priority
given to the spiritual dynamics of growth by leaders of the Church Growth Movement.
Two of these areas [are] . . . the role of supernatural signs and wonders in church growth
and the part prayer plays in the extension of God’s kingdom.”4
Historically, revivals have taken place when God’s people prayed fervently
and earnestly and when they obeyed God’s word profoundly. Not only have churches
2Ibid., 57. 3C. Peter Wagner, Your Church Can Grow, rev. ed. (Ventura, CA: Regal
Books, 1984), 51-52. 4Donald A. McGavran, Understanding Church Growth, ed. C. Peter Wagner,
rev. 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), 8.
23
and missionary leaders needed to seek earnestly the power and presence of God in their
lives, but they also needed to pray strategically to utilize God’s power in places where
God was multiplying disciples and churches. McGavran concluded, “While an
evangelical awakening is a movement of the Holy Spirit in the church of Christ and thus
depends on the initiative of almighty God, it is usually granted to those who pray
earnestly for it.”5
The Holy Spirit’s presence and power has been released through intentional
prayer. The book of Acts provided several examples of early believers coming together
to pray for boldness (Acts 1:14-2:41, 2:42-47, 4:23-31, 6:3-7). In his work The Book of
Church Growth, Thom Rainer asserted,
Prayer is the power behind the principles. There simply is no more important principle in church growth than prayer. The prayers of the early church unleashed the power of God to add thousands to the church. It happened then. It is happening in some churches today. And it can happen in your church.6
After praying, those early believers were empowered by the Spirit, and people were
saved.
The same pattern could be followed today. Prayer for boldness and for the
movement of God’s Spirit within the community and in the lives of the people groups
that are being sought should be part of an effective outreach strategy. In summary,
“Christians should learn all God has to teach us about church growth, and pray without
ceasing for revival.”7
5Ibid., 134. 6Thom S. Rainer, The Book of Church Growth—History, Theology, and
Principles (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993), 183-84.
7McGavran, Understanding Church Growth, 143.
24
Forgiveness and Loving Service
Vibrant faith and strategic prayer, which connect with the power of God, have
often resulted in practical acts of Christian grace and love. When believers have obeyed
the Scriptures and truly forgiven others who have offended them, unbelievers have been
influenced to receive Christ. When churches have lovingly served the communities
around them, the unchurched have been motivated to come to Christ. In summary,
“Conversions multiply when men see Him, Who went about doing good, among them
again in Christian neighbours and churches. Sometimes a Christward move has started
when some population became convinced through loving service that Christianity was the
true faith.”8
Intensity of Belief
People have engaged in exercising personal faith, in praying fervently and
strategically, and in acting in love. And what people have specifically believed about
Jesus Christ and the mission of the church has impacted what they actually did. Beliefs
have shaped the foundation for spiritual action and, thus, have impacted church growth
results. Did spiritual leaders and churchmen believe that God was by nature a missionary
God? Did spiritual leaders and churchmen believe that God commanded church
expansion? Was Jesus Christ the one and only Son of God and the one and only source
of salvation? Were people really on their way to spending eternity in a literal hell apart
from Jesus Christ? What was the highest priority of mission activity—meeting practical
needs or leading people into a saving faith relationship with Jesus Christ? The answers to
8McGavran, How Churches Grow, 57.
25
some of these questions have determined the results of church growth. McGavran
concluded, “Church growth will occur more readily where churchmen believe that it
makes an eternal difference whether one is Christian or not and whether one’s
community is Christian or not.”9
Evangelism
Therefore, the natural outgrowth of a vibrant faith, a belief system that has
been founded upon God’s desire to find lost people, was to have a healthy and balanced
growth mentality. Having a growth mentality meant believing that it was both God’s
nature and desire to grow his church through multiplying disciples and churches. Along
with this desire came an understanding that numbers must be utilized to track the number
of disciples that were being made as well as the resources being used for outreach. In
addition, individuals and churches have evaluated their outreach efforts regularly by
asking themselves questions like these: “When is the last time I have led someone to
Christ? When is the last time this church baptized someone from outside of the existing
church family?”
Highest Priority
Some have argued that this focus on numbers and making evangelism the
highest priority of the mission of the church was pragmatic, unbiblical, or narrow-
minded. Some have argued that this focus has competed with meeting social needs.
However, Peter Wagner asserted, “Evangelism and church planting need to regain the top
position in denominational philosophies of ministry. . . . In fact, the Gallup surveys tell
9Ibid., 58.
26
us, churches that have held to the biblical priority of evangelism have actually ended up
making more of a contribution in the area of social ministries than churches that have
reversed their priorities and allowed evangelism to slip down the list.”10 In addition, with
many churches plateaued or declining, a definite need existed for church growth. Peter
Wagner elaborated further:
I would love to see church membership declines in the mainline denominations bottom out and begin to soar upward. But I am afraid that they will not unless and until the evangelistic mandate is restored to its biblical position as the top priority. I am not suggesting a reduction in social ministry, simply an increase in soul-winning evangelism and new church planting. Liberal stalwarts will fight against this, but they need not prevail.11
Intentional Efforts
In addition, believers and churches have planned on doing intentional or direct
evangelism. Intentional evangelistic efforts were required in order for church growth to
take place. Win Arn elaborated,
There is a relationship between the amount of time and effort and the number of people involved in direct evangelism and the growth of the church. . . . Considering direct evangelism, I would like to emphasize that we’re not talking of a special crusade once every four years lasting a week or two, or of a once-a-year evangelistic emphasis in a local church. We’re calling for a consistent program of evangelism fifty-two weeks of the year.12
10C. Peter Wagner, “Aiming at Church Growth in the Eighties,” Christianity Today, 21 November 1980, 27.
11C. Peter Wagner, Leading Your Church to Growth (Ventura, CA: Regal
Books, 1984), 34. 12Donald McGavran and Win Arn, How to Grow a Church (Glendale, CA: G/L
Publications, 1975), 105-06.
27
Therefore, churches and their leaders developed some method(s) of tracking what was
being done in relationship to direct evangelism and how effective those efforts were.
Seeking and Finding
Understanding the difference between seeking and finding was another
important aspect of developing a healthy church growth mentality. While it was true that
God was a God who sought the lost, he was also a God who was not content with merely
seeking. He was a God who did not settle for anything less than finding the lost. Peter
Wagner stated,
The Church Growth Movement has boldly asserted that not only is church growth OK, but it is the will of Almighty God. From the time he founded the movement in 1955, Donald McGavran of Fuller Seminary has declared with the tireless verve of a prophet that God wants His lost sheep found and brought into the fold. Those who have chosen to identify with McGavran’s movement, and I include myself among them, have chosen as their biblical rallying point Jesus’ Great Commision to “go therefore and make disciples of all the nations” (Matt. 28:19).13
Jesus himself said that he came to seek and save those people who were
spiritually lost. Therefore, churches and missional leaders were not to settle for anything
less than finding the lost or to be content with themselves just because efforts had been
made to seek the lost. The question remained—“How many spiritually lost people have
we actually found?” Getting some measure of the intentional evangelistic efforts among
comeback churches has definitely been an assessment factor.
Leadership
When a spiritual fire exists within believers, mission leaders, and churches and
a clear understanding of God’s evangelistic and multiplication mandate has been applied
13Wagner, Leading Your Church to Growth, 13.
28
in ministry, effective leadership has been present. Overall, the CGM probably
highlighted the issues of leadership and evangelism more than any others. Some have
argued that leadership was the most critical issue. If leaders were not fervently stoking
their spiritual fire and leading others to engage in evangelistic and multiplication growth,
then the church at large has been less likely to understand its missional nature and has
been less effective in its missional task.
In his book Your Church Can Grow, Peter Wagner identified seven areas that
indicated the level of church health—the pastor, the people of the church, church size,
structure and functions, homogeneous unit, methods, and priorities. These were outlined
in summary fashion in his book Leading Your Church to Growth:
1. A pastor who is a possibility thinker and whose dynamic leadership has been used to catalyze the entire church into action for growth. . . .
2. A well-mobilized laity which has discovered, has developed, and is using all
the spiritual gifts for growth. . . . 3. A church big enough to provide the range of services that meet the needs and
expectations of its members. . . . 4. The proper balance of the dynamic relationship between celebration,
congregation, and cell. . . . 5. A membership drawn primarily from one homogenous unit. . . . 6. Evangelistic methods that have proved to make disciples. . . . 7. Priorities arranged in biblical order. . . .14
These indicators pointed out why leadership was so crucial, and not just any
kind of leadership, but the kind of leadership that believed in and practices biblical
church growth principles. The proponents and purveyors of the CGM outlined several
14Ibid., 35-38. Another short list is on p. 35 in Your Church Can Grow.
29
areas of leadership development that would lead to church growth. The list of leadership
issues included overcoming a non-growth mentality, winsome or active shepherding,
sharing ministry, and planning for growth.
Overcoming Non-Growth Thinking
In his earlier writings, McGavran identified a problem which continues to
occur in modern missions thinking in some places. A mentality of accepting slow or no
growth had been adopted by some mission agencies and leaders as well as some churches
and church leaders. Non-growth thinking meant that slow or no growth was justified
upon the basis of remnant thinking. This remnant theology was used to rationalize slow
growth and, in a sense, glorify littleness. McGavran asserted, “Remnant theology proves
attractive. A glorification of littleness prevails, in which to be small is to be holy. Slow
growth is adjudged good growth.”15 Even biblical paradigms were used to legitimize
non-growth thinking—“Gideon and his army constitute a paradigm for remnant
theologians. Books are published with such titles as Small Churches Are Beautiful, Small
Churches Are the Right Size, and as has been mentioned, Church Growth Is Not the
Point.”16
Another concept that needed to be identified and discarded in non-growth
thinking was the idea that being “faithful” was all that mattered to God. This mentality
described those who defended slow or no-growth by saying, “God has called us to be
faithful, not successful.” Peter Wagner elaborated,
15McGavran, Understanding Church Growth, 121. 16Wagner, Leading Your Church to Growth, 61-62.
30
1 Corinthians 4:2 is often used to back this up: “Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful.” I have never been able to comprehend setting faithfulness over against stewardship, however. It seems to me that biblically they go together. One of Jesus’ central teachings is His parable of the talents. . . . They [the servants] were faithful because they were successful in taking the master’s resources and using them for the master’s purpose.17
McGavran and his most well-known disciple, Peter Wagner, challenged that
kind of thinking. They refused to adopt that mentality or believe that slow or no growth
was the reality that believers and church leaders had to or should accept. Thus, these
questions have remained, “What do I really believe about church growth? Do we believe
that God wants his church to grow and that he wants the leaders of his churches to lead in
growth? How do we overcome a slow or no growth theology?”
In his book Leading Your Church to Growth, Peter Wagner identified several
scenarios that have low or no growth potential. When a church has been small, its growth
potential could have been low because it could not overcome the feelings associated with
small church intimacy. To grow would have meant to lose the desired intimacy level of
being able to know everyone within the church family. At other times churches have had
“terminal illnesses”—contextual dynamics that defuse growth potential and lead to the
death of a congregation. For example, churches that have found themselves in an area
where the people group dynamics drastically change often have not been able to
transition with the community. In addition, Wagner acknowledged that certain
geographical contexts provided little or no growth potential because of low population or
excessive mobility. He concluded,
This book is not addressed to churches with little or no growth potential, particularly to the first two types of churches. There are many wonderfully
17Ibid., 62.
31
consecrated Christian pastors who are called to serve such churches. Because of their personalities, temperaments, spiritual gifts mixes, health conditions, age, family situations, or any combination of the above, they will never be church growth pastors. I want to make it clear that God loves these pastors and so do I. I do not want anything in this book to be interpreted as a put-down of these men and women of God.
But there are thousands of pastors of non-growing churches which do have growth potential. Obstacles to their growth can be identified and removed. This book is addressed to such pastors and such churches. If, by chance, some twinges of guilt for nongrowth occur here and there in situations where growth potential exits, I will not be disappointed. I will even suggest that it might be interpreted as a nudge from the Holy Spirit Himself. Why? Because with certain important exceptions as I have mentioned, church growth is the will of God.18
Winsome Shepherding
Being a strong leader did not mean that a pastor had to be domineering or
overbearing in the pastoral role. In fact, in many cases, loving shepherds who were
willing to lead their congregations in growth were admired and respected. Peter Wagner
commented, “Strong pastors of strong churches have earned the fierce loyalty of their
parishioners. The sheep love their shepherd. . . . The pastor of a growing church is
typically a strong authority figure and that authority has been earned through living
relationships with the people.”19
One factor that led to winsome shepherding was developing a healthy view of
pastoral authority. The shepherd who was comfortable exercising the authority that he
had been given by God would be loved by the people. Another factor that helped
develop a winsome relationship between the shepherd and the sheep was pastoral
longevity. Generally speaking, pastors who were focused on the people and the context
18Ibid., 18-19. 19Wagner, Your Church Can Grow, 64-65.
32
in which God had placed them were more likely to lead their churches in a growth
pattern. Peter Wagner stated,
One of the reasons why growing churches do not have to spend much time worrying about what will happen when their pastor goes is that a substantial number of pastors of growing churches have considered their particular parish to be a lifetime calling. They are not looking around for greener pastures.20
Sharing Ministry
By practicing church growth principles, the pastor who led became an
equipping leader. Sharing ministry involved having the desire and willingness to give
away responsibility and authority to church members so that they became congregational
ministers. As one writer stated, “Beyond the minutiae, however, several major
ingredients appear to be necessary if a congregation is to address and redivert its life and
mission successfully: Pastoral Leadership is the key in this writer’s opinion. . . . The
Commitment of Lay Leadership is not far behind. . . . No pastor or session can go it
alone.”21 The Apostle Paul espoused this principle of ministry leadership in Ephesians
4:11-12, “It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be
evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of
service, so that the body of Christ may be built up” (NIV). Peter Wagner asserted, “An
equipper is a leader who actively sets goals for a congregation according to the will of
20Ibid., 67. 21Joreen Jarrell, “Revitalization: Can These Bones Live?” Church & Society,
September/October 1987, 29-30.
33
God, obtains goal ownership from the people, and sees that each church member is
properly motivated and equipped to do his or her part in accomplishing the goals.”22
Balancing humility, power, service, and leadership, had presented quite a
dilemma for the pastor and the congregation. How did one maintain strong leadership
and be an equipper at the same time? How did the congregation allow the pastor to lead,
and the members to take responsibility for the ministry of the church? However, these
two concepts have coexisted in many growing churches. Peter Wagner stated,
But very few pastors adequately understand the relationship that power has to humility. They seem like exact opposites, but in reality they are not. Jesus affirmed this as clearly as possible when He said, “Whoever exalts himself will be abased, and he who humbles himself will be exalted” (Matt. 23:12). . . .
The first active verb is “exalts himself.” It is humanly possible to take the initiative and exalt oneself. All too often a pastor will say words to the effect, “Now that I am your pastor, you must obey me.” But true pastoral authority is not self-generating, it is bestowed by God. . . .
The second active verb is “humbles himself.” It is likewise possible for a person to take the initiative and decide to be humble. . . . James says straight out: “Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord” (Jas. 4:10), and suggests that this activity take two forms. First we are to resist the devil (Jas. 4:7) and secondly we are to draw near to God (Jas. 4:8).23
In summary, strong leadership involved leading with humility and the desire to
serve the people of the congregation and equip them and motivate them to share in the
ministry and mission of the church. Peter Wagner outlined three sources of strong,
healthy leadership—becoming a strong leader meant that leadership would be earned,
discerned, and learned. Leadership was earned; it was not automatic and was not to be
expected just because someone holds a title or a position. Therefore, earning the right to
lead would likely take pastors several years of proving their willingness to serve people
22Wagner, Leading Your Church to Growth, 79 (italics in original).
23Ibid., 80-81.
34
faithfully. Leadership was also discerned; it was a gift of the Spirit. In addition,
leadership was learned; the ability to lead grew through training and experience. It
required an attitude of teachability that would result in the development of better
leadership knowledge and skills.24
Planning for Growth
A vibrant faith and desire to grow has resulted in making plans, defining
strategies, and setting goals for growth. Donald McGavran observed that planning for
growth was an essential part of the church growth process:
By 1980 it had become commonplace in thousands of congregations to see the complex subject of church growth in scientific detail. Various strands of growth had been charted, analyzed, graphed, discussed, and viewed in time perspective. Goal setting had become thoroughly at home in the American church.
However, much remained to be done. Of the more than 300,000 American congregations, only a fraction had been aroused to church growth. Great segments of the church slept on. Even some of those who had drawn up goals, failing to allocate resources to growth, had sadly concluded that this latest fad had not worked. As the eighties progressed, the turnaround of mainline U.S. and Canadian denominations was still not assured. But goal setting was helping churches evaluate what they had done and set forth clearly what they intended to do.25
Research done by Kirk Hadaway concurred with this assessment—
The keys to renewed growth apparently are evangelism and goal setting. Non-growing churches must begin to reach new people. . . . These churches also need to be challenged to do something beyond the ordinary. Setting goals—especially attendance goals for special events—helps goad a comfortable congregation into action. When new people start to visit and attendance grows, the congregation begins a process of change which may be difficult to reverse. The result is a revitalized, growing congregation.26
24Ibid., 103-05.
25McGavran, Understanding Church Growth, 278. 26C. Kirk Hadaway, “From Stability to Growth: A Study of Factors Related to
the Statistical Revitalization of Southern Baptist Congregations,” JSSR 30 (1991): 191.
35
Donald McGavran outlined three essential steps that should be taken in setting
church growth goals:
1. The first step in setting goals is to emphasize that evangelism is a thoroughly biblical activity. . . .
2. The second step is to chart past growth. . . .
3. The third step is to make faith projections. . . . Faith projections are made in
prayer and with a confident assumption of the continued presence of the Holy Spirit. Faith projections are what we feel God wants to do through us. . . .27 These were practical steps on the road to church growth reality. Wanting to
grow was not enough. Planning for growth meant making bold plans based upon God’s
leadership, trusting him, and working hard to accomplish those goals. As the old saying
has intimated, “You aim at nothing; you hit it every time.” To make no plans for growth
was likely to result in little or no growth every time. Being timid was not what God
desired of us. In essence, “the indispensable condition for a growing church is that it
wants to grow and is willing to pay the price for growth.”28
Lay Ministry
After evangelism and leadership, another church growth subject which
emerged from the CGM concerned getting church members actively involved in
meaningful ministry. Phrases like “mobilizing the laity,” “discovering and developing
your spiritual gifts,” and “equipping the saints” became commonplace. These phrases
described a major shift that took place from clergy-centered ministry to lay-centered
ministry. Pastors were exhorted to give ministry away to the people and train them to
27McGavran, Understanding Church Growth, 278-80.
28Wagner, Your Church Can Grow, 59 (italics in original).
36
discover and use their spiritual gifts. An effort was made to erase many of the unhealthy
distinctions between clergy and laity because too often pastors were trying to do all the
ministering and church members were content to let the pastors perform. Darrell
Robinson explained,
The responsibility for reverting to a distinction between clergy and laity can be laid at the feet of both pastor and people. The people have all too often been ready to yield their spiritual responsibility to the [pastor]. The pastor has been all too ready to assume the spiritual responsibility for the people. . . .
The hope of the fulfillment of the mission of Jesus in our world is for pastors and people to return to the New Testament pattern of ministry. Pastors and other God-called leaders must equip the saints for the work of the ministry to build up the body of Christ.29
In many of the writings on this subject, equipping people and helping them
discover and use their spiritual gifts was approached through “church growth eyes.” In
other words, mobilizing the laity was ultimately seen as a necessary part of fulfilling the
Church’s mission in the world. With this in mind, some church growth writers outlined
three aspects of mobilizing the laity: leading people to discover their gifts, mobilizing the
people to use their gifts, and empowering the people to use their gifts.
Discovering Spiritual Gifts
Spiritual gifts were unique spiritual dynamics given to God’s people by the
Holy Spirit. Peter Wagner outlined four fundamental prerequisites that needed to exist in
a person’s life before he would be able to discover his spiritual gift(s). First, the person
had to be a follower of Jesus Christ. Second, he had to believe that spiritual gifts really
existed. Third, he had to be willing to work hard and serve so that he could discover and
29Darrell W. Robinson, Total Church Life: Exalt, Equip, Evangelize—Church Growth Strategy, rev. ed. (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993), 127-28, 130.
37
utilize his spiritual gifts. Fourth, he had to pray for wisdom.30 Once these prerequisites
were met, he could proceed to the five steps necessary to discover spiritual gifts:
1. Explore the Possibilities—This step involves learning about the gift options or possibilities. This can be accomplished by studying the Bible, learning your church’s position on gifts, reading extensively on the subject, getting to know people who have mobilized their gifts, and talking about spiritual gifts.
2. Experiment with as Many as You Can—Basically, this means that a need exists to get involved in serving the body of Christ. Be available for ministry and test the work of God’s Spirit in your life.
3. Examine Your Feelings—In what areas and in what ways do you enjoy serving
the most? It is OK to enjoy discovering, developing and utilizing your spiritual gifts.
4. Evaluate Your Effectiveness—People are going to accomplish things best in
the area of their giftedness. In addition, if you try something for a while and do not see many results, it is probably an indication that you do not have that spiritual gift.
5. Expect Confirmation from the Body—The people in your church family will
be able to give you feedback on what they see through your life. They can confirm both what gifts you have and do not have.31
Mobilizing God’s Gifted People
After God’s people have started discovering and using their spiritual gifts,
church leaders needed to start mobilizing or unleashing the laity—getting the laity on the
front lines of ministry rather than just doing menial tasks on the back rows of ministry.
Frank Tillapaugh differentiated between front-line ministry and rear-echelon ministry.
Front-line ministry took place in actual ministry settings like leading a small group or
getting involved in a specialized ministry to a target group. Rear-echelon ministries
30C. Peter Wagner, Your Spiritual Gifts Can Help Your Church Grow
(Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1979), 113-16. 31Ibid., 116-33.
38
meant being involved with meetings, making plans, and running programs. In regard to
these two options, Tillapaugh stated, “People in the midst of battle develop the healthiest
attitudes.”32 In other words, people grew in their faith and developed better attitudes
about life and ministry because they were doing meaningful and purposeful things with
their time—engaging in front-line ministries.
Not only did mobilizing the laity get the people involved in front-line
ministries, but it also solved two other problems according to Tillapaugh. First,
mobilizing the laity reduced the level of whining and complaining among the people that
seemed to naturally materialize because of rear-echelon tasks. Second, mobilizing God’s
gifted people helped eliminate disobedience to the Great Commission.33 The church had
been called and commanded not only to express good will and share good deeds, but also
primarily called to proclaim good news and make disciples of all people groups.
Unleashing the church for front-line ministry led to a dynamic fulfillment of our Lord’s
last commands to make disciples and be witnesses.
Empowering God’s Gifted People
As God’s people discovered their spiritual gifts and were mobilized for front-
line ministry, they needed to be reminded continually that the power for effective
ministry came from God’s basic gift to every true believer in Jesus Christ—the
indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. The measure of this gift was according to the
power of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Ray Stedman described this power:
32Frank Tillapaugh, Unleashing the Church: Getting People out of the Fortress
and into Ministry (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1982), 123.
33Ibid., 124-28.
39
We must understand that resurrection power is like no other power on earth. It is unique and has no possible rival on earth. For one thing, it is the kind of power that operates in the midst of death. It works when everything around it is dull, dead, and barren. . . .
Furthermore, resurrection power makes no noise. . . . When a Christian is living by resurrection power he does not advertise it or seek to dazzle others by display. His effect upon others is quiet and unobserved at first, but soon there are evident changes that mark the inevitable effect of resurrection power at work: the return of life, vitality, excitement and joy to an individual or situation. . . .
Resurrection power is also irresistible. It cannot be thwarted or turned aside. It takes absolutely no account of any obstacles thrown into its path, except to use them for further opportunities to advance its cause. . . .
Resurrection power needs no props or support. It does not borrow from any other source, though it uses other forms of power as its instrument. It does not even require a cup of coffee to get started in the morning! There is absolutely nothing else like it anywhere in the universe.
It is available to every true Christian by faith.34 When God’s people were actively involved in utilizing their gifts for ministry,
they needed to be filled continually with the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. This
daily filling of the Spirit required faith and obedience to God’s command (Eph 5:18).
Peter Wagner summarized, “Faith tells us that God wants His church to grow. He wants
His lost sheep found and brought into the fold. And He will do it through the gifts He has
given to each of us for His glory.”35
Small Groups
In the CGM, one of the key techniques or methods that developed was the use
of cell groups, or as they are more often referred to today, small groups. This concept of
utilizing a multiplying network of groups to promote church growth arose as an
alternative to the more traditional model of Sunday School. However, Sunday School
34Ray Stedman, Body Life (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1972; 1986), 66-68. 35Wagner, Your Spiritual Gifts, 257.
40
has also been promoted as compatible with church growth and has also been discussed
briefly below. In some cases, both Sunday School and small groups were used
effectively. Below, the factor of small groups has been discussed—the purpose of small
groups, the structure of small groups, and then, Sunday School as small groups.
Purpose of Small Groups
The main purposes of small groups were defined as evangelism and care.
When small groups were used as a church growth strategy, they were not seen as a
network of social clubs. They were intended to be a way of connecting people with one
another in a real and personal way so that effective outreach and ministry could take
place through smaller groups of people. When people attended a larger church service,
they had little opportunity to really get to know others, care for each other’s needs, or use
their spiritual gifts. Small groups provided opportunities for those things to take place.
More importantly, cell groups had provided a more informal and safe environment for the
unchurched to get to know some believers in Christ and experience the love of Christ in
action. Then, those lost people were prepared to receive Christ and become part of the
church family.
Therefore, the main purpose of small groups had to be constantly promoted.
Small groups easily became ingrown. Paul Cho stated, “If left alone, a cell will become
an extended family unit not welcoming the influx of outsiders. This is why the purpose
of the cell group has to be stressed on a continual basis.”36 That purpose was evangelism.
Paul Cho described how this purpose was fulfilled by the church that he pastors:
36Paul Y. Cho with R. Whitney Manzano, More Than Numbers (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1984), 51.
41
Our church, however, carries out evangelism primarily through the home cell group system. Each cell group becomes a nucleus of revival in its neighborhood, because the cell group is where real life is to be found in that neighborhood. When a home cell meeting is full of life, and when people are happy and sharing their faith and witnessing to what the Lord has done in their lives, other people are drawn to them. Unbelievers become curious. They want to know why this little group of Christians is so joyful when all around them there are so many troubles.37
Structure of Small Groups
While making the effort to maintain the evangelistic purpose of small groups,
the structure and function of small groups had to be understood as well. Carl F. George
elaborated:
I believe that the smaller group within the whole—called by dozens of terms, including the small group or the cell group—is a crucial but underdeveloped resource in most churches. It is, I contend, the most strategically significant foundation for spiritual formation and assimilation, for evangelism and leadership development, for the most essential functions that God has called for in the church. . . . It’s so important that everything else is to be considered secondary to its promotion and preservation.38
In these comments, George touched on many of the important dynamics of small
groups—leadership development, healthy relationships, assimilation, and spiritual
formation. All these things took place if small groups functioned effectively.
Some issues that needed to be considered in regard to the structure of small
groups were leadership training, group limitations, multiplying networks, and
submission. Leadership training was provided for every small group leader. Each group
was assigned a trained leader. In addition, each group had an apprentice who was
37Paul Yonggi Cho with Harold Hostetler, Successful Home Cell Groups
(Plainfield, NJ: Logos International, 1981), 58-59. 38Carl F. George, Prepare Your Church for the Future (Tarrytown, NY:
Fleming H. Revell, 1991), quoted in Rainer, Book of Church Growth, 293.
42
learning from the leader. When apprenticeship was taking place, small groups provided a
multiplying network of leaders. In addition, as groups multiply, leaders were prepared to
take responsibility for the new groups that were needed.
Two limitations needed to be in place for small groups—time and size. Group
meetings needed a time limit. If the groups met too long, people became disenchanted
with participation. Limiting the size of small groups was also important because the
larger a group got the more impersonal that group became. Moreover, having groups of
ten to twelve people or family units appeared to be a biblical pattern. Ron Trudinger
asserted, “We can trace in both Old and New Testaments a definite trend towards
breakdown into small groupings for the effective care and instruction of individuals.”39
He went on to discuss the examples of Moses, Jesus, and Paul.
In addition, small groups needed to intentionally seek to multiply themselves.
Multiplication was difficult for people who developed strong relationships within their
groups. The need for a multiplying network of small groups also highlighted the
importance of training apprentices and maintaining a clear evangelistic purpose. When
these two tasks were carried out consistently, people became more likely to understand
and accept the plan to multiply their small groups. Having an apprentice in each group
also allowed group members some relational continuity when the time arrived for the
groups to divide or multiply.
Last, the small group networks had to develop with an attitude of submission.
The pastor needed to be in submission to those in authority over him; small group leaders
39Ron Trudinger, Cells for Life—Home Groups: God’s Strategy for Church
Growth (Plainfield, NJ: Logos International, 1979), 25.
43
needed to be in submission to the pastor and the mission of their church. As Paul Cho
affirmed, the issue of submission started at the top and worked its way down:
In our church we have “authority with love.” If a pastor really loves the people in his congregation, they will respond to his authority and will obey his teaching. But if the pastor tries to exert his authority merely on the strength of his position or on human maneuvering, the people will rebel, and he will be in trouble.40
Sunday School as Small Groups
Although they had many overlapping traits, Sunday School and small groups
were not promoted as the same thing. The biggest difference between the two was that
most small groups met in homes or other places in church members’ neighborhoods;
generally, small groups did not meet at the church facilities. Having said that, Sunday
School certainly accomplished the same purposes that cell groups did—life
transformation, evangelizing the lost, and assimilating new members. In his book
Church Growth through the Sunday School, John Sisemore described how Sunday
School provided the structure for growth because Sunday School was compatible with
growth, provided for all available persons, facilitated assignments for growth, provided
leadership for growth, personalized church growth efforts, produced maximum
involvement in growth activities, and was a continuing and stable force for growth.41 He
went on to describe how to implement Sunday School in order to accomplish all of those
purposes. Basically, church growth principles have been applied using either small
40Cho, Successful Home Cell Groups, 94. 41John T. Sisemore, Church Growth through the Sunday School (Nashville:
Broadman Press, 1983), 85-95.
44
groups or a Sunday School format. Maybe the issue that needed to be settled was which
method would be more successful in a given context.
Worship
One final area where church growth had a major influence upon the North
American church was worship. The relationship between church growth and worship
developed because worship services were the primary way that unchurched people
initially “checked out” the Church. Thom Rainer affirmed,
Yet worship has been linked with church growth primarily because worship services are increasingly becoming the entry point for the unchurched into churches. White comments: “If a nonchurched person does decide to investigate involvement in a local church, what is the ‘front door’ by which he or she will enter?” . . .
Why has this change taken place in American churches? A primary reason is that most people interested in a church would like to “try it out” with anonymity. . . . Second, in a large crowd the seeker is not put on the spot to participate. . . . Finally, no commitment is required in a larger group. . . . By visiting the worship service first, guests can evaluate the church without being pressured.42
Therefore, many changes took place in relationship to worship with more on the horizon,
and a church growth mindset was often the driving force for these changes. Churches
were feeling a greater need to be more user-friendly in regard to their worship
expressions so that the unchurched could be reached more effectively. Some worship
issues that have been effected by church growth were feelings of expectancy, creating a
warm and friendly atmosphere, building variety into musical expressions, and providing
practical biblical preaching.
42Rainer, Book of Church Growth, 225-26.
45
Feelings of Expectancy
People have often brought a sense of expectation with them when they have
attended a worship celebration; they have anticipated that something meaningful and
vibrant was going to take place. That sense of expectation was one reason why Peter
Wagner came up with the church growth equation Celebration + Congregation + Cell =
Church. People wanted to come to a worship service where they could meet a real God
who could really help them and who was worthy of being sought. Doug Johnson
elaborated,
The general feeling before and during worship in a vital congregation is one of expectancy. People come to worship seeking assistance in their lives. They do not come to be observers, nor do they expect a performance by the choirs or by the worship leader.
The mood of the worshipers and leaders appeared to be a serious search for spiritual awareness.43
In addition, worshipers have expected a certain level of quality and purpose
surrounding the worship experience. The building and facilities needed to be well-kept,
neat, and generally attractive in order to remove these kinds of distractions from the
minds of worshipers. Also, people wanted the information shared in programs or
bulletins to be positive, challenging, and action-oriented. People wanted to see churches
focused on more than just their own needs; they wanted to see an emphasis on the
community and the world.44
43Douglas Johnson, Vitality Means Church Growth, Creative Leadership Series
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989), 55. 44Ibid., 57-58.
46
Friendly Atmosphere
In his book Foundations for Church Growth, Kent Hunter identified the
importance of this issue—“How does the non-Christian feel when he first attends
worship? . . . The message is either that God wants to reach new people or He doesn’t.”45
By creating a warm and friendly atmosphere from the beginning of the attender’s worship
experience to the end, a church could send the message that God cared and God wanted
to reach new people. This kind of environment was influenced by the attitudes and
actions of ushers, greeters, and other worshipers. Douglas Johnson explained,
In the first place, the mood or tone of the service was conveyed by the ushers and greeters as people entered the sanctuary. Generally, the tone expressed by ushers and greeters was that everyone, regardless of status or garb, had equal access to God. Each person received a warm greeting. Both newcomers and regular attenders were made to feel welcome and wanted.46
Another influence was the level of recognition that was given to people—“Is the
atmosphere real and personal?”
Musical Variety
This aspect of worship has been one of the most controversial issues for the
church as it sought to apply church growth principles. As one writer stated, “People
guard their taste in music, especially in the life of the church, more dearly than
doctrine.”47 However, the application of church growth principles was leading to
45Kent R. Hunter, Foundations for Church Growth (New Haven, MO: Leader
Publishing Company, 1983), 101-02. 46Johnson, Vitality Means Church Growth, 56. 47James Emery White, Opening the Front Door: Worship and Church Growth
(Nashville: Convention, 1992), quoted in Rainer, Book of Church Growth, 232.
47
changes in style and approach in the area of worship. These changes meant getting more
people involved in the musical area by enlarging existing musical groups (expanding a
choir or enlarging a worship team). Change also meant offering a greater variety of
musical expression by starting new choirs or musical groups that focused on a different
need or style. Last, making changes in this area often required that churches develop
multiple services and/or moving to multiple sites.48
Practical Biblical Preaching
Often, the central focus of a worship service was the message preached by the
pastor. Preaching was still a key element in relationship to church growth and evidenced
certain characteristics in growing churches—the preaching was targeted, biblical,
practical, relevant, interesting and entertaining, simple, and positive and encouraging.49
Douglas Johnson concurred with this assessment:
A vital congregation is grounded in a faith based on biblical preaching, especially the story of Christ’s life and resurrection. Even though this was pointed to as a basic strength, when asked what they felt they needed to become more vital, respondents in these studies stressed over and over the need for a deeper understanding of the Bible. They also wanted preaching that was based on the Bible but relevant to their daily needs.50
Conclusion
From biblical preaching to fervent faith, from the 1950s through the 1980s, the
leaders and proponents of the CGM outlined key concepts which they believed had to be
48Johnson, Vitality Means Church Growth, 58-62. 49Rainer, Book of Church Growth, 233-34. 50Johnson, Vitality Means Church Growth, 62-63.
48
applied for North American church revitalization to occur. Starting with the key figures
of Donald McGavran and Peter Wagner, the CGM expanded from its initial emphasis on
worldwide missions to its application in the North American context. While the two
major concepts were evangelism and leadership (at least in volume written), other factors
such as spiritual fervency, small groups, lay ministry, and worship were discussed as
well. When applied intentionally, CGM proponents believed that these concepts would
lead to church growth, church multiplication, and church revitalization. Furthermore,
churches had experienced renewal as they adopted and applied these concepts of church
growth.
In other words, why did some churches grow and others did not? According to
the factors espoused within the CGM, churches grew when they exercised a vibrant faith,
intentionally evangelized people groups, developed and displayed godly leadership,
multiplied small groups, mobilized God’s people, and worshipped God passionately.
These teachings espoused by the champions of the CGM in large measure formed the
foundation or baseline for this study. They have been used extensively in developing the
survey instrument and, in large part, have been the criteria by which 324 comeback
churches were evaluated and analyzed.
49
CHAPTER 3
COLLECTION AND PRESENTATION OF DATA After crafting the survey instrument and gaining the approval of the ethics
committee, a list of qualifying churches (based upon the established criteria) was sought
to include in the survey. Denominational leaders were contacted by e-mail and phone
(utilizing Appendix 4) and asked to provide a list of churches from their denominations
that could be contacted. Over forty denominations of various sizes and types were
contacted to solicit participation in this study and eventually ten provided lists of
qualifying churches. The initial denominational contact list was provided in Appendix 6.
Within those denominations that had an established method of tracking church
data, the process of identifying comeback churches involved sorting out the churches that
met the comeback criteria. For example, selecting the qualifying churches in The
Southern Baptist Convention, Assemblies of God, and the Foursquare Church was a
matter of doing a query to identify churches. This selection process was done by the
NAMB Research Department and by the other denominations being contacted. Within a
few of the smaller denominations, the process of identifying qualifying churches was less
formal. The criteria were expressed both in writing and verbally to denominational
leaders who then provided a list of churches which they believed fit the comeback
criteria. The large majority of churches that were surveyed were included based upon
specific denominational record-keeping. The following denominations provided
50
churches that met the comeback criteria based upon denominational records: Assemblies
of God, Churches of God, The Christian and Missionary Alliance, Church of the
Nazarene, The Evangelical Free Church of America, The Foursquare Church, The
Southern Baptist Convention, and The Wesleyan Church. Only the Baptist General
Conference and the Convention of Atlantic Baptist Churches provided churches based on
denominational leadership recommendation. Churches from these two denominations
only totaled fourteen survey respondents out of 324.1
The actual survey process was started by this writer, who conducted
approximately ten percent of the actual completed surveys. Starting the phone surveys
provided an opportunity to refine the survey and the phone calling procedures. This
initial effort also made possible the provision of better oversight for those who completed
the rest of the surveys; those surveys were conducted by two people hired by the NAMB
Research Department. This writer had open feedback and communication with those
responsible for this part of the process throughout its entirety.
The surveys allowed respondents to provide both numerical and verbal
responses. When responding to various church growth factors, the leaders being
surveyed were asked to rate each item on a scale from 1 to 5. A rating of one meant that
a factor was perceived to have little or no effect on the comeback or the factor changed
very little during the comeback. A rating of two meant a factor had a perceived small
1Each denomination that provided a list of churches received a number series
(1000s, 2000s, 3000s, etc). Then each potential church within each denomination received a number in its denomination’s series. For example, the SBC churches were given the 1000 series; the list of churches from the SBC were then assigned a number starting with 1001, then 1002, then 1003, etc.
51
effect. A rating of three meant a factor had some perceived effect. A rating of four
meant that a factor was perceived to have a major effect. A rating of 5 meant that a factor
was perceived to have a vital effect in regard to the comeback. Then, if a factor was rated
a 4 or 5, further clarification was requested and those responses were recorded. If a
respondent desired to express more information, even if the initial rating was not a 4 or 5,
that information was recorded as well.
In addition, other factors were surveyed using a list and response method. In
some cases, various aspects of a particular church growth factor were listed from which
respondents could choose. Furthermore, those being surveyed were given the
opportunity to provide their own responses if they chose to do so. Preaching style was
examined by asking respondents to rate the preaching style(s) of the pastor on a
percentage basis. Finally, some information was sought utilizing an open-ended format.
A question or an issue was posed and respondents gave open-ended responses; they were
not given any suggested answers or numerical rating system to use.
Once a group of completed surveys was gathered, this writer set up and began
cataloguing all survey responses, both numerical and verbal. The numerical responses
were tracked using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The final version of this document
was kept in the possession of this writer. The verbal responses were tracked using a
series of Microsoft Word documents; a separate document was used to track each
separate item of verbal response. The final versions of these documents were kept in the
possession of this writer. 2
2 To obtain specific information regarding the spreadsheet data or verbal responses, contact John Michael (Mike) Dodson—the mailing address is 10392 Hollis Road, Meadville, PA 16335, or e-mail [email protected].
52
This writer developed, catalogued, and maintained the spreadsheet and Word
documents from beginning to end. No one else input any of the data. In addition, all the
spreadsheet analysis and verbal response analysis was done by this writer. In the
following pages, an overview of the numerical and verbal response data has been
presented, and then, in the next chapter an analysis of the collected data has been
presented.
Numerical Data
First, some general data have been presented, and then, specific survey
response categories have been presented. The first chart outlined the percentage of
churches actually surveyed by denomination. Overall, the SBC provided the largest
percentage of churches (53 percent) while nine other denominations provided the rest (47
percent).
Figure 1. Percentage of respondents by denomination
Percentage of Comeback Churches
CMA3%
Wesleyan2%
EFCA1%
BGC2%
CABC2%
COG1%
Nazarene13%
Foursquare1%
SBC53%
AG22%
SBC
Foursquare
AG
CMA
COG
Wesleyan
EFCA
Nazarene
CABC
BGC
53
A list of definitions for the denominational abbreviations was given in Appendix 5.
The next item tracked numerically was the level of education achieved by the
comeback church leaders.
Figure 2. Education level achieved by comeback leaders
Education Level of Comeback Leaders
Master's28%
College Degree28%
Some College16%
Some Grad School12%
High School5%
Doctoral11%
Master'sCollege DegreeSome CollegeSome Grad SchoolDoctoralHigh School
As the chart displays, 56 percent of the comeback church leaders had achieved either a
college (28 percent) or master’s (28 percent) degree.
Vibrant Faith
The first category of responses related specifically to comeback factors was
fervent faith. The comeback leaders rated five aspects of fervent faith, and the following
chart has displayed how they rated each of those components.
54
Figure 3. Rating of five components of vibrant faith
4.44 4.23 4.13
3.48 3.47
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
Comeback Leaders' Rating
1
Rated Factors
Components of Spiritual Fire
Renewed Belief
Servanthood
Strategic Prayer
Setting Goals
Relationships
Overall, renewed belief, servanthood, and strategic prayer were all rated as having more
than a major effect (4), while setting goals and relationships were not far behind in effect,
rating between having some effect (3) and having a major effect (4).
Various Church Growth Factors
After vibrant faith, six other church growth factors were surveyed using the
same format. Each of these factors was surveyed and rated separately. For purposes of
analysis, these six factors were compared side by side.
55
Figure 4. Rating of six church growth factors
Church Growth Factors
2.91
3.04
3.14
3.67
3.87
3.95
4.17
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Marketing
Facilities
Small Groups/SS
Incr/Chng Evang
Mobilizing Laity
Vibrant Faith
Strong Leadership
Comeback Leaders' Ratings
In many ways, these six factors were the heart of the survey. Analyzing each of these
church growth components has provided valuable insights into the comeback process.
Worship Style
The next factor that was surveyed examined the worship style or moods of the
comeback churches. This factor was rated in a different way because worship style can
have different facets. Those being surveyed were given a list of possibilities with the
opportunity to select multiple options. Comeback leaders responded regarding worship
style:
56
Figure 5. Rating of worship moods
96%95%84%
69%62%
35%
17%15%14%2% 1%0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percentage Mood Chosen
Celebrative
Orderly
Informal
Contemporary
Expressive
Exuberant
Majestic
Formal
Contemplative
Solemn
Several
Types of Moods
Worship Moods
Preaching Style
The next factor assessed was the type of preaching utilized by the pastors of
comeback churches. The respondents were given five options from which to choose—
verse by verse, topical, thematic, narrative, and/or other. Each respondent was allowed to
choose one or more of the options but required to make the overall percentage add up to
one hundred. While the verse by verse style was used 53 percent of the time, the other
four styles combined were used 47 percent of the time as well by comeback pastors.
57
Figure 6. Rating of preaching styles
Preaching Styles
53%
28%
12%
6%
1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
1
Percentage Style Chosen
Verse by Verse Topical Thematic Narrative Other
Verse byVerse53% Topical
28%
Thematic12%
Other1%
Narrative6%
Comeback Changes
In the final set of numeric responses, those being surveyed were asked to
respond to a list of factors and rate the degree to which they changed during the
comeback. This part of the survey was designed to get feedback regarding what was
taking place after the revitalization process had already started. The comeback leaders
rated those factors:
58
Figure 7. Rating of various factors that changed during comeback
Change During Comeback
3.783.76
3.683.46
3.223.00
2.632.27
2.06
1.89
3.833.82
3.73
3.29
2.94
2.23
1.99
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
1
Factors
Degree of Change (1) No Change (2) Little Change (3)Some Change
(4) Many Changes (5) Drastic Changes
Prayer
Children's Min
Evangelism
Youth Min
Leadership
Missions
Assim/New Memb
Worship
SS/Small Grps
Organ Str
Committee/Teams
Deacon/Elder
BusMtgs/Voting
Memb Req
Ordinances
Preaching
Const/Bylaws
Verbal Responses
In order to track the various factors to which survey respondents gave verbal
feedback, nineteen separate Word documents were created. Together, those documents
contained over 170 pages of responses from the completed surveys. These documents
have been made available by contacting the writer of this project (see n. 2 on p. 50). In
this section, each area of verbal response has been discussed briefly.
59
Vibrant Faith
The first survey item of verbal response was a follow up question related to the
components of vibrant faith. Survey respondents were asked to select the one factor (out
of the five that were rated in this category) that was most important and explain their
reasoning for selecting that factor. The specific question was, “Which of the above
factor(s) (specific goals, strategic prayer, reconciling relationships, renewed servanthood,
or renewed belief in Jesus Christ & his mission) was most important in the church’s
comeback? Why?” Every survey respondent (324) answered this question, and fourteen
pages of responses were recorded to this specific question. In addition, respondents were
allowed to mention more than one of the listed factors if they chose to do so.
“Renewed belief” was the verbal response mentioned in 118 or 36.4 percent of
the total responses. “Pray(er)” was listed in 93 or 28.7 percent of the total responses.
“Servanthood” was mentioned in 63 or 19.4 percent of the total responses.
“Reconciliation” or “relationships” were mentioned in 45 or 13.9 percent of the total
responses. Finally, “goals” were mentioned in 41 or 12.7 percent of the total responses.
Evangelism
The next survey question referred to the first item in the second set of factors
examined in the survey. The question was intended to collect specific information from
respondents on how they increased or changed evangelistic efforts. Generally, those
being surveyed were only asked this question if they rated this factor as having a major
(4) or vital (5) effect. On a few occasions, survey respondents offered feedback to this
and other questions despite having rated the given factor as having a very small (1), little
(2), or some (3) effect. This follow-up question was asked about evangelistic efforts—“If
60
increased or changed evangelistic efforts had a major or vital effect, please describe how
the efforts were increased and/or how they were changed (e.g., started new effort,
assimilation process, started training program, revival, intentional prayer, style changes,
attitude change, new service, satellite church, church plant, etc.).”
To this follow-up question, just over ten pages of responses were recorded.
Out of 324 total surveys, 234 respondents (72.2 percent) answered the question. Eight
specific items or words were stated at least 10 times within the 234 responses. “Outreach
events” was mentioned in 81, or 34.6 percent, of the 234 responses to this question. The
church growth program “FAITH” was mentioned in 28, or 12 percent, of the total
responses. “Preaching” was recorded as a response 27 times (11.5 percent of the total).
More specifically, “evangelistic preaching” was mentioned 23 times. In addition,
“lifestyle/relational/friendship evangelism” was stated by 23, or 10 percent, of the total
respondents. The word “intentional” was used in 25, or 10.7 percent, of the total
responses. “Training” was mentioned in 21, or 9 percent, of the verbal responses to this
question. The church growth program “GROW” was mentioned in 13, or 5.6 percent, of
the responses. Finally, “church plant” was stated by 10, or 4.3 percent, of the 234
respondents to this question.
Other items that were mentioned less than ten times by the 234 respondents
were the following: Share Jesus without Fear (9), Evangelism Explosion (8), ALPHA
(7), servant evangelism (7), VBS (5), Heaven’s Gates-Hell’s Flames (4), Becoming a
Contagious Christian (4), AWANA (4), NET (3), mission trips (3), Way of the Master
(2), CWT (1), and REACH (1).
61
Lay Ministry
When specifically asked about mobilizing the laity, 264 responses (81.5
percent) were recorded to this question out of 324 total surveys. The specific question
asked about this factor was—“If mobilizing the laity had a major or vital effect, please
describe how the mobilization took place (starting a gift discovery process, increasing
ministry expectations, renewal, evangelism training, increased prayer, etc.).” Over
eleven pages of responses were recorded.
In response to this question, nine items or words were prominent. The most
significant word mentioned was “gifts”; it was mentioned in 136, or 51.5 percent, of the
total responses. More specifically, “gifts assessment” was mentioned in 77, or 29.2
percent, of the responses to this factor. “Expectations” was another key word mentioned
in regard to lay mobilization; it was recorded in 43, or 16.3 percent, of the responses. In
addition, “ministry expectation” was recorded as a response from 38, or 14.4 percent, of
respondents. Another word mentioned in 42, or 15.9 percent, of the 264 responses to this
question was “training.” Also, “discovery” was mentioned in 32, or 12.1 percent, of the
responses to this factor. “Prayer” was mentioned in 29, or 11 percent, of the responses.
In various ways (SHAPE, PDC, 101-401, 40 Days, etc.), some aspect of the Purpose
Driven model was mentioned in 19, or 7.2 percent, of the responses. Finally, the word
“challenge” was mentioned by 15, or 5.7 percent, of the respondents to this question.
Small Groups
The next verbal response item was a follow up question in regard to how a
given church utilized a small group system. A church may have used Sunday School,
cell groups, or both. The respondents were asked this specific question, “If small
62
group/Sunday School efforts had a major or vital effect, please describe how the efforts
were increased and/or how they were changed (increased emphasis, new program, new
materials, transition from one to the other, adding one to the other, etc.).” Over seven
pages of responses were accumulated in regard to this question. Out of 324 total surveys,
176 (54.3 percent) respondents answered this question.
In regard to this church growth factor, four words stood out in the responses.
“New” was the verbal response mentioned in 92, or 52.3 percent, of the 176 responses.
This term was used to refer to new space, new classes, new teachers, etc. “Increase” was
listed in 40, or 22.7 percent, of the responses. “Add” was mentioned in 31, or 17.6
percent, of the responses. Another key word in response to this question was “start”; it
was mentioned in 27, or 15.3 percent, or the responses.
Marketing
When specifically asked about marketing, 173 (53.4 percent) responses were
recorded to this question out of 324 total surveys. The specific question asked about this
factor was—“If marketing had a major or vital effect, please describe how the marketing
was done (e.g., direct mail [no. pieces and no. times], mass email [no. sent], door to door
surveying [no. homes], personal invitations, telemarketing [no. calls], etc.).” Seven pages
of responses were recorded in response to this question. Two especially unique patterns
occurred in response to this question. First, 111 of the responses (64 percent) mentioned
using at least two different methods of marketing. Second, a significant number of
respondents mentioned using personal invitations even if they did not rate this factor as
having a major (4) or vital (5) effect.
63
Seven items or words stood out in the responses recorded to this question. The
most significant item mentioned was “personal invitations,” which was mentioned in 128,
or 74 percent, of the 173 responses. “Newspaper” was another key word mentioned in
regard to marketing; it was recorded in 47, or 27.2 percent, of the responses. In addition,
“website” was recorded as a response from 43, or 24.9 percent, of the respondents to this
question. Another word mentioned in 38, or 22 percent, of the 173 responses to this
question was “mail.” Also, “radio” was mentioned in 26, or 15 percent, of the responses
to this factor. “TV/television” was recorded in 18, or 10.4 percent, of the responses.
Finally, the words “door to door” were mentioned by 16, or 9.2 percent, of the
respondents to this question.
Facilities
The next verbal response item was a follow up question in regard to the impact
of church facilities on a church’s comeback. The respondents were asked this specific
question, “If facility changes had a major or vital effect, please describe what facility
changes took place (e.g., remodeled existing structures, moved into new facilities, rented
different meeting space, built new facilities, etc.).” Seven pages of responses were
recorded in regard to this question. Out of 324 total surveys, 174 (53.7 percent)
respondents answered this question.
In regard to this church growth factor, four words stood out in the responses.
“Remodeled” was the verbal response mentioned in 107, or 61.5 percent, of the 174
responses. “New” was listed in 70, or 40.2 percent, of the responses. “Moved” was
recorded in 31, or 17.8 percent, of the responses. Another key word in response to this
question was “built”; it was mentioned in 21, or 12.1 percent, of the responses.
64
Leadership
When specifically asked about leadership, 279 responses (86.1 percent) were
recorded to this question out of 324 total surveys. The specific question asked about this
church growth factor was—“If strong leadership had a major or vital effect, please
describe the leadership factors that affected the comeback (e.g., such as being more
proactive, sharing ministry, more intentional planning, change in attitude toward growth,
specific training, style change, etc.).” Twelve pages of responses were recorded.
In the responses recorded to this question, nine items or words were prominent.
The word mentioned most often was “attitude”; it was mentioned in 97, or 34.8 percent,
of the 279 responses. “Growth” was another key word mentioned in regard to leadership;
it was recorded in 93, or 33.3 percent, of the responses. In addition, “vision” was
recorded as a response from 88, or 31.5 percent, of the respondents to this question.
Another word mentioned in 81, or 29 percent, of the 279 responses to this question was
“change.” In addition, “unity” was recorded in 51, or 18.3 percent, of the responses to
this factor. “Proactive” was mentioned in 49, or 17.6 percent, of the responses. Also,
“training” was mentioned in 47, or 16.8 percent, of the responses. “Sharing” was
recorded as a response from 46, or 16.5 percent, of the respondents to this question.
Finally, the words “intentional planning” were mentioned by 27, or 9.7 percent, of the
respondents to this question.
Time Management
The next section of the survey asked questions regarding pastoral and staff
issues such as time management, task changes, and staff changes. In this section, the first
item of verbal survey response was a follow up question in regard to the weekly schedule
65
and time management of the pastor. The respondents who indicated they had made some
or drastic changes were asked this specific question, “If there were some or drastic
changes, what areas received a greater priority or emphasis of time for the pastor (sermon
preparation, personal evangelism, prayer, training members, etc.) and how?” Almost ten
pages of responses were recorded in regard to this question. Out of 324 total surveys,
243 (75 percent) respondents answered this question.
In regard to this factor, six items or words stood out in these responses.
“Sermon preparation” was the verbal response mentioned in 100, or 41.2 percent, of the
243 responses. Also, a key category of response emerged in the responses to this
question—“people stuff” such as training members, staff management, counseling,
discipleship, and mentoring; these kinds of items were listed in 83, or 34.2 percent, of the
responses. “Prayer” was mentioned in 78, or 32.1 percent, of the responses. Another key
item in response to this question was increased “visitation”; it was mentioned in 67, or
27.6 percent, of the responses. “Personal evangelism” and “community” were mentioned
in 27, or 11.1 percent, of the responses to this question. Last,
“administration/organization” was mentioned in 16, or 6.6 percent, of the responses.
Tasks Removed
The next question asked respondents to list and describe any tasks that were
removed from their list of ministry responsibilities. When specifically asked about this
issue, 189 responses (58.3 percent) were recorded to this question out of 324 total
surveys. The specific question asked about this church growth factor was—“Were any
tasks or areas of emphasis almost entirely removed from the staff so that they could focus
on these other areas (e.g., church administration, fewer office hours, custodial duties, less
66
meetings, etc.)?” Over seven pages of responses were recorded in response to this
question.
Two key responses were recorded to this question. The first response
mentioned most often was “administration”; it was mentioned in 116, or 61.4 percent, of
the 189 responses. The other category mentioned was related to “custodial duties” or
“building maintenance”; these items were recorded in 75, or 39.7 percent, of the
responses.
Staff Changes
Next, the respondents were asked about pastoral and staff changes utilizing this
specific question, “Did the turnaround coincide with any significant pastoral or staff
changes? YES/NO. If yes, please briefly describe the changes without mentioning
specific names of people.” Almost eleven pages of responses were recorded in regard to
this question. Out of 324 total surveys, 276 (85.2 percent) respondents answered “YES”
to this question, which also means that 48 (14.8 percent) respondents answered “NO” to
this question.
Several other statistics were important to note. First, 95 (29.3 percent)
responses recorded just the lead pastor being changed. Second, 111 responses recorded a
senior pastoral change along with other staff changes (34.3 percent), which means overall
that 63.6 percent of the respondents indicated that the church’s turnaround coincided with
a change in the role of lead or senior pastor. Third, 70 (21.6 percent) respondents
indicated that only other staff or lay ministry changes had been made.
In regard to this factor, four areas of ministry stood out in relationship to
pastoral or staff changes. “Youth” was mentioned in 102, or 37 percent, of the 276
67
responses. “Worship/music” was recorded in 70, or 25.4 percent, of the responses.
“Children” was mentioned in 38, or 13.8 percent, of the responses. Also,
“secretary/administration” was listed in 33, or 12 percent, of the responses to this
question.
Membership Requirements
In the next section of the survey, respondents were asked questions regarding
membership and issues related to worship services. In this section, the first item of
verbal survey response was a follow up question regarding membership requirements.
The respondents who indicated that they had lowered or raised their membership
requirements were asked this specific question, “If they changed, what requirements were
added or removed?” Seven pages of responses were recorded in regard to this question.
Out of 324 total surveys, 177 (54.6 percent) respondents answered this question.
Two key responses were recorded to this question. The first response,
mentioned most often, was “new member class”; it was mentioned in 165, or 93.2
percent, of the 177 responses. The other item mentioned was “signed covenant”; this
item was mentioned in 60, or 33.9 percent, of the responses.
Additional Services
When specifically asked about adding services in addition to the primary
service, 96 responses (29.6 percent) were recorded to this question out of 324 total
surveys. The specific question asked about this issue was, “Briefly describe any worship
services that your church has in addition to its primary service. Did this/these additional
68
service(s) have a major impact on your church’s comeback? If yes, which one(s) and how?”
Four and one half pages of responses were recorded in response to this question.
Six items or words stood out in the responses recorded to this question.
“Wednesday” was mentioned in 56, or 58.3 percent, of the responses. In addition,
“Sunday” was recorded as a response from 39, or 40.6 percent, of the respondents to this
question. Another item mentioned in 32, or 33.3 percent, of the 96 responses to this
question was “bible study.” Also, “prayer” was mentioned in 21, or 21.9 percent, of the
responses. Eighteen (18.8 percent) of the respondents specifically cited that their
additional services had no impact on their comeback. Finally, 17, or 17.7 percent, of the
responses mentioned the word “youth” in response to this question.
Helpful Books
In the last section of the survey, respondents were asked four summary
questions. The first question was, “What three books (other than the Bible) were the
most helpful in your transition?” Over thirteen pages of responses were recorded in
answer to this inquiry. With 297 (91.7 percent of 324 total surveys) responses to this
inquiry, this inquiry provided a large number of suggested books and authors.
The highest referenced resources were connected to the Purpose Driven model.
The Purpose Driven Church was mentioned in 99, or 33.3 percent, of the responses. Not
far behind, The Purpose Driven Life was mentioned in 64, or 21.5 percent, of the
responses. Overall, one or both of these books were mentioned in 148, or 49.8 percent,
of the responses. Both books were mentioned together in 15 of the responses.
After Rick Warren’s books, Thom Rainer and his books were mentioned most
often. References to Rainer and his works occurred in 26, or 8.8 percent, of the
69
responses. His book Surprising Insights from the Unchurched was mentioned in 13
responses. Very close to Rainer in number of references was John Maxwell. With
mention in 25, or 8.4 percent, of the responses to this question, Maxwell and his books
were also fairly popular among respondents. His book The 21 Irrefutable Laws of
Leadership was mentioned in 21 responses.
Three other authors received mention in over 5 percent of the responses to this
survey question—Henry Blackaby, Andy Stanley, and Jim Cymbala. With regard to
Blackaby, he was referenced in 22, or 7.4 percent, of the responses. His works
Experiencing God and Spiritual Leadership were mentioned in 15 and 7 responses
respectively. Stanley and his works were mentioned in 21, or 7.1 percent, of the
responses. His books Can We Do That? (co-authored with Ed Young, Jr.) and 7
Practices of Effective Ministry were each mentioned in 9 responses. Jim Cymbala’s
“Fresh” books were mentioned in 18, or 6.1 percent, of the responses.
Several other authors and their works were mentioned in less than 5 percent of
the responses. Good to Great, by Jim Collins, was mentioned in 14 responses. George
Barna and his books were mentioned in 12 responses. John MacArthur was mentioned
by 10 respondents. Bill Hybels was mentioned in 9 of the responses. Then, a number of
other authors were mentioned at least three times by survey respondents—Max Lucado
(7), Erwin McManus (7), Dallas Willard (6), John Bevere (5), Bob Russell (5), and
Charles Stanley (4).
Influential People
In the next summary question, respondents were asked to identify key people
who influenced the comeback in a positive way. The respondents were asked this
70
specific question, “What three people were the most influential during your church’s
comeback and what role did they play in the process?” Over sixteen and a half pages of
responses were recorded in regard to this question. Out of 324 total surveys, 321 (99.1
percent) respondents answered this inquiry. Several key words and key types of people
or roles were mentioned in the responses.
One of the key words mentioned was “lead”; it was mentioned in 181, or 56.4
percent, of the responses. The word “support” was utilized in 181, or 56.4 percent, of the
responses as well. Another word used often was “passion”; it was mentioned in 114, or
35.5 percent, of the responses. “Vision” and “pray” were also used a significant number
of times. The word “vision” was mentioned in 99, or 30.8 percent, of the responses, and
the word “pray” was used in 97, or 30.2 percent, of the responses. Also, “accountability”
was mentioned in 42, or 13.1 percent, of the responses to this question.
In regard to key types of people or roles, the respondents mentioned twelve
items. “Deacon” was referenced in 118, or 36.8 percent, of the responses.
“Worship/music” was referenced in 111, or 34.6 percent, of the responses. “Lay
person(s)” was mentioned in 86, or 26.8 percent, of the responses. “Youth” was
mentioned in 77, or 24 percent, of the 321 responses. Also, “wife” was mentioned in 74,
or 23.1 percent, of the responses. “Children” was mentioned in 60, or 18.7 percent, of the
responses. “Sunday School/education” was mentioned in 52, or 16.2 percent, or the
responses. In addition, “Board (member)” was mentioned in 30, or 9.3 percent, of the
responses. “Mentor” was mentioned in 16, or 5 percent, of the responses. Three other
items were mentioned in less than 15, or 5 percent, of the responses—“secretary” (14),
“elder” (13), and “former pastor” (8).
71
Top Factors
In the last section of the survey, respondents were then asked about the top
three factors that led to their church being revitalized. With the third summary question,
respondents were asked this specific question, “What are the top 3 factors that led to your
church being a “comeback church”?” Out of 324 total surveys, 320 responses (98.8
percent) were recorded to this inquiry. Thirteen pages of responses were recorded.
In the responses recorded to this question, eleven factors or words were
prominent. The word mentioned most often was “prayer”; it occurred in 143, or 44.7
percent, of the 320 responses. “Evangelism/outreach” was another key factor mentioned
in regard to this inquiry; it was recorded in 119, or 37.2 percent, of the responses. In
addition, “preaching” was recorded as a response from 80, or 25 percent, of the
respondents. Another word mentioned in 55, or 17.2 percent, of the 320 responses to this
inquiry was “vision.” In addition, “worship” was mentioned in 48, or 15 percent, of the
responses to this inquiry. Also, “community” was mentioned in 33, or 10.3 percent, of
the responses. Finally, three words or factors were mentioned in less than 30, or 10
percent, of the responses—“change” (27), “people” (27), and “new” (25).
Biggest Challenges
With the last summary question, survey respondents were asked to identify the
biggest challenges their church faced in making a comeback. Respondents were asked
this specific question, “What were the biggest challenges facing your church during the
transformation from its plateau/decline to its revitalization?” Out of 324 total surveys,
319 responses (98.5 percent) were recorded to this inquiry. Thirteen pages of responses
were compiled.
72
Six items or words stood out in the responses recorded to this question.
“Finances” was mentioned in 68, or 21.3 percent, of the responses. In addition,
“facilities/space” was recorded as a response from 50, or 15.7 percent, of the respondents
to this inquiry. Another item mentioned in 47, or 14.7 percent, of the 319 responses to
this inquiry was “change.” Also, “tradition” was mentioned in 46, or 14.4 percent, of the
responses. “Attitude” was an implied response by 38 (11.9 percent) of the respondents;
they used words like attitude, mindset, mentality, disunity, small church, small town, etc.
Finally, 16, or 5 percent, of the responses mentioned the word “lack” in response to this
question.
Additional Comments
After asking about biggest challenges, survey respondents were asked about
two other items. First, respondents were asked to provide information about any other
churches that had made a comeback. This question was essentially dropped from the
survey process because respondents were not aware of any other comeback churches or
the information which they could provide was very general in nature. Second,
respondents were asked to share any additional comments. Very few responses were
recorded in regard to this item.
Conclusion
After contacting over forty denominations, churches from ten denominations
participated in this survey of comeback churches. In the survey process, 324 phone
surveys were conducted. Both numeric and verbal responses were given by respondents
covering a wide range of church growth factors. In this chapter, the survey process and
73
initial results have been presented and summarized. In the next chapter, the findings of
this survey project have been analyzed in a more comprehensive and thorough way.
74
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF DATA
General Information
In this section, several initial bits of information have been examined. The
survey process sought to identify each church’s age, church’s attendance, pastor’s age,
pastor’s education level, and pastor’s employment status (full-time, part-time, or bi-
vocational). Each of these findings has been analyzed briefly.
Church Age
In this study, churches that participated ranged from several years in existence
to over 200 years in existence. The average age of a participating church was sixty-three
years and the median age was fifty-three years. Older churches, as well as younger
churches, were revitalized.
Established churches experiencing plateau or decline should be encouraged by
this discovery. A church did not have to be younger to experience growth and
revitalization. Over 83 percent of the surveyed churches were more than twenty years
old; 72 percent were more than thirty years old.
Church Attendance
From 18 in attendance to 7000 in attendance, this study included a wide range
of churches with regard to size. Higher attendance churches were not the sole focus of
75
this study, nor did higher attendance churches comprise the majority of churches
surveyed. In this study, 65 percent of the churches that participated were under 200 in
attendance. While 12 churches over 1000 in attendance participated in this survey, 312
churches averaged less than 1000 in attendance.
The average size of a church participating in this study was 266, and the
median was 138. Smaller and larger churches have found good news in this outcome.
For smaller churches that might be struggling to overcome a “small church” mentality,
this outcome revealed that even smaller churches can be revitalized and grow. Also,
larger churches did not have to accept a “slow growth” mentality. They grew and were
revitalized even when size made it more difficult to achieve a significant growth rate
(membership to baptism or conversion ratio).
Pastor’s Age
In this study, a positive correlation seemed to exist between being somewhat
older and leading a comeback church. While the ages of pastors in this study ranged
from 26 years old to 86 years old, the average pastor’s age was 48 as well as being the
median age. Seventy-five percent of these comeback pastors were over 40 years of age.
While it was evident that younger pastors led churches to make comebacks,
pastors over forty years of age achieved this task more frequently in this study. Since this
study did not focus on discovering further dynamics regarding this issue, it was difficult
to conclude why three-quarters of the pastors of 324 comeback churches were over forty.
Was it a matter of maturity, experience, failure, perseverance, etc.? This discovery
regarding age may have uncovered a good topic for a future study.
76
Pastor’s Education
In this area, a positive correlation existed between a pastor having more
education and being the leader of a comeback church. Ninety-five percent of those
surveyed had more than a high school education (see Figure 2). Seventy-nine percent
had at least a college degree, and fifty-one percent had more than a college degree.
While it was evident that pastors with less than a high school education were comeback
leaders, over three-quarters of the comeback churches surveyed had pastors with at least a
college degree. Thus, a majority of the churches surveyed had pastors that moved
beyond a college degree in the area of education.
Pastor’s Employment
In this survey, 89 percent of the respondents were full-time; only 11 percent
were part-time or bi-vocational. These percentages indicated that a positive relationship
existed between being full time and leading a comeback church. On the other hand, the
fact that part-time or bi-vocational pastors led some of these comeback churches should
be an encouragement to other pastors with the same employment status. A comeback
happened in those circumstances in addition to situations with full-time pastors.
Annual Baptisms
After asking about the pastor’s employment type, the survey asked about
annual baptisms or conversions within the church. However, many pastors were either
reluctant to guess at these numbers or provided wide ranges of numbers. Some were
willing to look for that data, but due to the constraints of time, that was not feasible.
Because these data were hard to collect this question was eventually dropped from the
77
interview process. In addition, statistics regarding church baptisms and conversions
(membership to baptism/conversion ratios) had already been obtained and utilized as part
of the screening process for inclusion in the study, which was another reason the decision
was made to drop this question.
Surveyed Factors
After obtaining some general information from respondents, the survey process
focused on gathering feedback regarding various church growth factors. Some of these
factors included vibrant faith, evangelism, lay ministry, small groups, etc. The first factor
examined was vibrant faith (included in Figure 3).
Vibrant Faith
Five aspects of vibrant faith were rated (renewed belief, servanthood, strategic
prayer, setting goals, and relationships), and then, respondents were asked to choose one
aspect that had the greatest impact on their church’s comeback and explain why that
impact was felt. Numerically, “renewed belief in Jesus Christ and the mission of the
church” was rated highest by comeback leaders among the five aspects of vibrant faith.
Not only did the respondents rate renewed belief the highest, but they also reinforced that
rating by using the words “renewed belief” the highest number of times in their verbal
responses, which validated the numeric rating.
Over one-third (36 percent) of the respondents selected “renewed belief in
Jesus Christ and the mission of the church” as the most significant aspect of vibrant faith
impacting their church’s comeback. What made renewed belief most important in the
minds of comeback leaders? To help answer that question, a sampling of their responses
78
was compiled in Appendix 8.1 In these responses, some comeback leaders described the
importance of renewed belief.
Two key issues were evident in these responses. First, the people needed to
know or experience the reality of Jesus Christ in their everyday lives. People
experiencing the reality of Jesus on a daily basis also allowed some churches to overcome
a slow or no growth mentality (such as having a survival or small church mentality).
Second, this belief and experience needed to translate into action. In other words, the
comeback respondents indicated that a relationship existed between true belief and
behavior. As people were renewed in the reality of believing in Jesus Christ and his
mission for the church, they acted outwardly. In follow-up interviews, some survey
respondents described how an atmosphere of renewed belief developed in some
comeback churches.
According to Pastor Frank Bellamy2 of Lighthouse Baptist Church in
Michigan, developing an atmosphere of renewed belief involved “a gradual, consistent
teaching of scripture combined with a day by day lifestyle of spiritual maturity. We have
strategic discipleship classes that have helped us grow. Also, our ALPHA, DivorceCare,
program and ministry to internationals and college students at Michigan State University
1The number after each response was the number assigned to each church
before the surveys were conducted. All potential survey respondents were given a successive number (1001, 1002, etc.; 2001, 2002, etc.) based upon their denominational affiliation. Each denomination had a different series (1000’s, 2000’s, 3000’s, etc.).
2The names of pastors, people, churches, and locations have been changed.
79
allows [sic] our people to see what non-Christians really think. This has helped them re-
establish their belief in the mission Christ has for the church.”3
David Roberts, pastor of Heap Baptist Church in Florida, preached about what
Jesus intended his church to be. Roberts discipled men, and his wife discipled women.
They used Pastor Ken Adams’ (www.crossroadsnewman.org) Impact Discipleship
(www.impactdiscipleship.org) material. In that study time, they specifically addressed
what Jesus did in his ministry and how that approach applies to the church today.
Subsequently, that first group of members agreed to serve in lay leadership roles, and two
became staff members.4 These things led to an atmosphere of renewed belief in Jesus
Christ and the mission of the church at Heap Baptist Church.
Evangelism
After the questions concerning vibrant faith, the next survey category asked
respondents to rate the impact of evangelism (see Figure 4). Overall, comeback leaders
rated this area as third most important among the following set of church growth factors:
evangelistic efforts, mobilizing the laity, small groups/Sunday School, marketing,
facilities’ changes, and leadership.
With regard to this church growth concept, respondents were not rating the
importance of evangelism. Survey respondents rated how they perceived the impact of
increased or changed evangelistic efforts upon their church’s comebacks. This question
3Frank Bellamy, interview by Chris Gaskin, 1 February 2006, survey id 10005, Lighthouse Baptist Church, MI.
4David Roberts, interview by Chris Gaskin, 7 February 2006, survey id 1064, Heap Baptist Church, GA.
80
was designed to gauge whether or not the comeback leaders and their churches became
more intentional in their evangelistic efforts, and generally, that proved to be the case. In
Appendix 9, a sample list of responses from comeback leaders was compiled regarding
evangelism.
Several observations were made based upon those responses from 234
comeback leaders. These comeback churches became more intentional in their
evangelistic efforts, and efforts were made within many of the comeback churches to
prepare for outreach such as prayer and training; they did not just go do evangelism
without preparation. Changed or increased evangelistic efforts occurred within these
churches because they made intentional, strategic efforts to move outward. Also, most of
the responses indicated that many of these churches did not have a “Ya’ll come”
philosophy; they developed a “Here we go!” approach.
Beyond that, the responses also clearly indicated that no “silver bullet” existed
when it came to evangelistic efforts. The responses intimated that most of the comeback
churches utilized different strategies and approaches. The common factors were those of
being intentional and moving outward. Another observation was that the people within
many of these congregations were intentionally trained and engaged in the church’s
outreach efforts. A final observation was that prayer was often mentioned as being an
intricate part of an effective overall strategy in the evangelistic efforts of comeback
churches.
Two parables were gathered from comeback leaders to illustrate the
evangelistic efforts of comeback churches. First, Beacon Church in Washington, had
evangelistic efforts that were mostly lay-driven. Pastor Ervin Haley drew evangelistic
81
insights from John Eldridge’s book Lifestyle Evangelism and Erwin McManus’ book
Unstoppable Force. In addition, Haley wrote his own training materials based on that
knowledge and his own personal experiences. He trained the laymen to minister to and
then witness to the homeless. Then, they trained other members to do the same. Pastor
Haley asserted, “We have to be the good news before we can share it.”5
Second, evangelism at Outreach Baptist Church has been staff-initiated but
lay-driven. Harry Neville, Missions Pastor for the Louisiana church said, “The racial
makeup of the community surrounding the church has changed from mostly Caucasian to
44 percent African American.”6 The church leaders had to make a decision: pick up and
move or stay and find ways to minister to the changed community. They decided to stay,
sponsor, and host a church plant in their building. Church leaders and lay people alike
used the Jerusalem Project, a community outreach tool, to survey the people in the area.
Also, they registered people for door prizes at their annual fall festival which gave them a
good list of prospects for Pace Church (the church plant). Upon registering, each person
received an information packet about Pace Church.
In addition, Outreach Baptist Church totally restructured its Sunday morning
pattern for Pace Church. Outreach moved its services to earlier times and allowed Pace
to meet at eleven o’clock. Pace launched on Easter in 2004. Harry Neville, Missions
Pastor, stated that Pace has helped them in many ways. “We have lost some people who
couldn’t or wouldn’t meet at the earlier time. Some got upset because we decided to stay.
5Ervin Haley, interview by Chris Gaskin, 26 January 2006, survey id 8057,
Beacon Church, WA.
6Harry Neville, interview by Chris Gaskin, 1 February 2006, survey id 1189, Outreach Pointe Baptist Church, LA.
82
Still others (primarily African American families) have decided to join Pace, which I
think is wonderful. However, we have gained several families due to our evangelistic
efforts with Fellowship and to our target group. Our Sunday School attendance has
grown because the children who attend Fellowship go to class with the children who
attend Outreach. We’ve also noticed an increase in our giving—2005 was the first year
Pastor Norris, who’s been here eighteen years, can remember us finishing the year in the
black! What a great testimony!”7
Lay Ministry
After evangelistic efforts, lay ministry, or mobilization, was the next church
growth factor that survey respondents rated. When asked, “Was your church’s comeback
affected by mobilizing the laity in a greater way?”, comeback leaders rated this factor
second highest among the factors of evangelistic efforts, mobilizing the laity, small
groups, marketing, facilities’ changes, and leadership. Overall, this factor was rated a
3.87 (see Figure 4), which means that most comeback leaders thought this area had at
least a major effect on their comeback. A sample list of responses regarding this factor
can be found in Appendix 10.
In analyzing those responses from comeback churches, three main issues rose
to the surface—expectations, equipping, and empowerment. Over and over again,
comeback leaders stated that one of the key issues that helped create an atmosphere for
lay mobilization was increased expectations upon the people. People within the church
were expected to be involved and use their God-given gifts, talents, and skills. In some
7Ibid.
83
cases, lay people had to meet certain expectations before they could be placed in
ministry. Also, unlimited expectations were not placed upon people. The laity was
expected to be involved, but their involvement was to be limited to one or two specific
ministries. In addition, the pastor and the people had to realize that the pastor cannot do
all the ministry by himself. In fact, the people were specifically taught in many cases that
they were responsible for the ministry of the church.
Another key aspect regarding lay mobilization was the utilization of a gifts
discovery process. Whether informal or formal, comeback leaders engaged the people in
a process of discovering their gifts and passions, then placed them in ministry
accordingly. Some used their own materials or process; others used resources such as
Network or the Discovery Class process from Saddleback.
Creating an environment where people felt empowered or enabled to do
ministry was a third aspect of lay mobilization. In many cases, empowerment occurred
through preaching, teaching, and training. In addition, a big part of empowerment was
communication. Many of the descriptions from comeback leaders pointed out that
nothing was assumed. Comeback leaders did not assume that the people understood their
gifts, roles, or the expectations that God had placed upon them to be active in ministry.
Comeback leaders took the time to communicate vision, expectations, and
implementation. The people were not only expected to be involved; they were shown
how to be involved in a systematic way. Then, people were encouraged to take
responsibility in their area of ministry and exercise appropriate authority to get it done.
In conclusion, two comeback leaders summarized their approach to lay
mobilization. First, Nate Pettis of Greenleaf Community Church in Connecticutt, told the
84
story of Barry who was seventy years old. Though Barry had been in church all of his
life, he had never really served in the church in any specific way. Pastor Nate saw
something in Barry that others did not and began to pray that Barry would develop a
servant’s heart. Nate started mentoring Barry; they prayed and studied scripture together.
Through this process, Pastor Nate found out that Barry had never been
discipled. As a result, Pastor Nate began encouraging Barry to learn scripture,
encouraged Barry to take part in some form of service, and continued to build up Barry’s
confidence. Two years later, Barry had become an elder in the church. He started
coming to the church early to pray with other men and made sure everything was in place
for the services. After telling Barry’s story, Pastor Nate reflected on lay mobilization, “I
think we have to stand beside people and give them the confidence to do things. We have
to give them the power to do the work of the church; then, we must stand back and cheer
them on as they carry out those tasks.”8
Second, Pastor Ellis Nutley explained one aspect of the mobilization strategy
at West Point Church of the Nazarene located in New York. Within the last six months,
Nutley led a group of laymen at West Point to develop what was being called Gather
Eleven. This project involved staffing the twelve most important ministries in the
church. One hundred laymen signed up to be involved in this effort during a ministry
fair. According to Nutley, starting Gather Eleven has helped “close the back door” at
West Point. When combined with their CARE ministry, which reached out to shut-ins,
nursing homes, and people who had not visited church in a while, these two ministries
8Nate Pettis, interview by Chris Gaskin, 31 January 2006, survey id 4005,
Greenleaf Community Church, CT.
85
became key elements in successfully retaining a majority of their members and
attenders.9
Small Groups
Next, the survey questioned respondents regarding the impact of small groups
(and/or Sunday School) upon each church’s comeback. Those surveyed rated this factor
fourth among the second set of factors (see Figure 4). When asked, “Was your church’s
comeback affected by increased or changed small group and/or Sunday School
dynamics?”, comeback leaders rated this factor 3.14 on a scale of 1 to 5. Overall, this
church growth factor was perceived to have “some effect” on revitalization among the
churches surveyed. Those who rated this factor 4 or 5 were asked the following: “If
small group/Sunday School efforts had a major or vital effect, please describe how the
efforts were increased and/or how they were changed (increased emphasis, new program,
new materials, transition from one to the other, adding one to the other, etc.).” In
Appendix 11, a sampling of responses regarding small groups has been provided.
When analyzing these responses, several issues became apparent. Comeback
leaders described an intentional process or strategy of addressing the area of small groups
and/or Sunday School. Also, a status quo did not exist. Whether these comeback
churches added, replaced, or started new classes or groups, leaving this area of ministry
the same was not an option. Changes were made. In addition, some comeback leaders
described utilizing a training system to develop and increase the number of leaders for
9Ellis Nutley, interview by Chris Gaskin, 26 January 2006, survey id 8008,
West Point Church of the Nazarene, NY.
86
small groups or Sunday School. Finally, in some cases, the churches made the effort to
create more space to accommodate new classes or groups.
Marketing
After small groups, marketing was the next factor that survey respondents
rated. When asked, “Was your church’s comeback affected by increased ‘marketing’
efforts?,” comeback leaders rated this factor last among the factors of evangelistic efforts,
mobilizing the laity, small groups, marketing, facilities’ changes, and leadership.
Overall, this factor was rated a 2.91 (see Figure 4), which means that most comeback
leaders thought this area had less than “some effect.” It was the lowest rated factor
among all the rated factors. However, the comeback leaders who rated this factor a 4 or 5
were asked to describe the impact of increased marketing further—“If marketing had a
major or vital effect, please describe how the marketing was done (e.g., direct mail [no.
pieces and no. times], mass email [no. sent], door to door surveying [no. homes], personal
invitations, telemarketing [no. calls], etc.).” A sample list of responses regarding
marketing can be found in Appendix 12.
One major issue stood out with regard to marketing—personal invitations.
While many comeback churches engaged in a variety of methods to communicate their
presence to the people in their communities, “personal invitations” was overwhelmingly
the method that had the greatest impact. Comeback leaders stated that they utilized a
“word of mouth” strategy, and one leader stated that he was “constantly reminding people
to invite friends” (1001). Another comeback leader asserted, “As people’s attitudes
changed within the church, they engaged in inviting others” (1028). Revitalization for
87
many of these churches was based more upon an intentional focus on inviting people
rather than an indirect marketing strategy.
Facilities
Following marketing, the survey asked respondents about the impact of
facilities upon their churches’ comebacks. When asked, “Was your church’s comeback
affected by changes in church facilities?,” comeback leaders rated this factor next to last
among the factors of evangelistic efforts, mobilizing the laity, small groups, marketing,
facilities’ changes, and leadership. Overall, this factor was rated a 3.04 (see Figure 4),
which means that overall comeback leaders thought this area had “some effect” in regard
to revitalization. About half of the comeback leaders thought this issue had a major or
vital effect upon their churches’ comebacks and about half thought it had very little or a
small effect on their church’s comeback.
Because of the way they responded to the original question, just over half of
the 324 comeback leaders were asked to describe the impact of facility changes further—
“If facility changes had a major or vital effect, please describe what facility changes took
place (e.g., remodeled existing structures, moved into new facilities, rented different
meeting space, built new facilities, etc.).” In Appendix 13, a sampling of responses
regarding facilities has been provided.
The follow-up responses indicated several important things. First, over sixty
percent of the comeback churches that answered the follow-up question engaged in a
process of remodeling. This significant finding indicated that churches could encourage
a process of revitalization without moving and/or buying new land or building new
buildings. Churches were able to upgrade their existing facilities by creating more space,
88
making that space more functional, landscaping, expanding parking, upgrading their
technological capabilities, etc. In addition, some comeback churches added secondary
buildings to support growth.
Second, a notable number of the respondents indicated that their remodeling or
addition of new facilities related to enhancing worship or youth and/or children’s
ministry. In this writer’s opinion, this correlation between buildings and ministries
indicated that many comeback leaders saw their buildings as tools to enhance their
ministry impact with people. Buildings were not the most important issue; buildings
were a means to a ministry end.
Third, some of the responses raised an important question—“Did facility
changes cause growth and revitalization or were facility changes a result of growth?”
One respondent stated, “We are intentional about Jesus Christ; the building is a good
tool” (2010). Other respondents asserted, “We moved into new facilities; this was the
number one reason for growth” (1155), and “Excitement about the new building brought
growth” (1098). Maybe the answer was dependent upon the person being asked and his
ministry context.
Below, three comeback leaders have described their churches’ facility changes.
Mark Yaley, pastor of Blue Collar Baptist Church in Ohio, said, “A new building
program brought excitement and growth to the church. People could see our vision for
the new building and the ministry we could accomplish, and they wanted to be a part of
89
it.”10 The church built entirely new facilities, including a worship center, education
building and a gym/fellowship hall.
Flowing River Ministries in Mississippi, gave their facilities a complete
facelift. “We remodeled our entire worship center to be seeker-friendly,” said Pastor
Todd Newing. “We took out the stain glass windows, removed the crosses from outside,
moved from pews to chairs, upgraded our sound system, and added a coffee ‘house’ at
the front of the main facility. All this contributed to our growth, because we had several
people come who said they had seen our building for years, but were uncomfortable
coming in.”11
Ted Yoder, pastor of Cross Lake Center in Minnesota, said, “Our growth
spurred our remodeling.”12 This church totally renovated its worship center, replacing
pews with chairs, putting in a new sound system, replacing the carpet and giving the
place a new paint job. Also, the education space saw changes. The major changes were
new carpet, paint, and creating new classrooms.
Leadership
After facility changes, leadership was the next church growth factor that
survey respondents rated. When asked, “Was your church’s comeback affected by strong
leadership?,” comeback leaders rated this factor first among the factors of evangelistic
10Mark Yaley, interview by Chris Gaskin, 2 February 2006, survey id 1098, Blue Collar Baptist Church, OH.
11Todd Ewing, interview by Chris Gaskin, 27 January 2006, survey id 8048,
Flowing River Ministries, MS.
12Ted Yoder, interview by Chris Gaskin, 2 February 2006, survey id 3046, Cross Lake Center, MN.
90
efforts, mobilizing the laity, small groups, marketing, facilities’ changes, and leadership.
Overall, this factor was rated a 4.17 (see Figure 4), which means that the large majority
of comeback leaders thought this area had at least a major effect on their comeback.
When asked, “If strong leadership had a major or vital affect, please describe
the leadership factors that affected the comeback (e.g., such as being more proactive,
sharing ministry, more intentional planning, change in attitude toward growth, specific
training, style change, etc.),” comeback leaders offered many responses. A sample list of
these responses regarding leadership was compiled in Appendix 14.
In analyzing these responses from comeback leaders, several issues rise to the
surface—being proactive and intentional, sharing ministry, changing attitudes toward
growth, and activating a shared vision. Many comeback leaders stated that one of the key
issues in effective, revitalizing leadership was proactive leadership and intentional
planning. These leaders were not passive; they were willing to make changes. In
addition, the comeback process often involved setting goals. These leaders understood
the old proverb—“When you aim at nothing, you will hit it every time.” Establishing
tangible growth goals was a key in getting other leaders involved in the revitalization
process in comeback churches.
Moreover, being an effective leader involved the process of getting the people
involved in the ministry of the church. Over and over again, comeback leaders
mentioned a shared ministry as a key component of effective leadership. An emphasis
was placed on intentionally training and empowering God’s people to fulfill their
ministry purpose in serving the body of Christ and reaching out to the lost. Comeback
leaders worked to develop and promote an atmosphere of teamwork.
91
Another element of strong leadership involved spurring a change in attitude
toward growth among the people of comeback congregations. Earlier in this paper,
negative attitudes (such as slow or no growth thinking or a small church mindset) toward
growth were discussed. Pastors of comeback churches led their people to a new attitude
toward growth by removing growth barriers, overcoming self-defeating attitudes, casting
a God-sized vision, and raising expectations.
In addition, comeback leaders often discussed the issue of vision. Having a
clear and compelling vision was foundational. Then, casting that vision to other leaders
and the congregation was described as an integral part of effective leadership. As
comeback leaders engaged in vision casting, a sense of unity developed as other leaders
adopted a common vision for church growth and reaching the lost. Comeback
congregations displayed a shared sense of vision, unity, and ministry, at least in part,
because of strong, effective leadership.
In concluding this analysis of comeback leadership, several comeback leaders
described the importance of leadership. Perhaps one of the most vibrant examples of
revitalization leadership was found at Greenville Community Church in South Carolina.
Pastor Ned Topper stated, “We make all of our leaders go through the Saddleback
Leadership Seminar. We constantly talk in our meetings about what it means to be a
leader. In addition to being a member, our leaders must go through a spiritual gifts test
and a spiritual maturity class.”13
13Ned Topper, interview by Chris Gaskin, 2 February 2006, survey id 1113, Greenville Community Church, SC.
92
Pastor Topper also described a bigger picture of comeback leadership. Branch
Baptist Church (started 1958) was a dying church in Greenville about to close its doors,
but the church asked Pastor Topper to preach one Sunday, which he did. Afterwards, the
church asked him to be the interim pastor. He refused, citing the lack of life in the
church. However, he offered the Branch church family the option of joining a group who
was starting Greenville Community Church, and Branch Baptist Church accepted.
Branch’s building was closed three months for renovations, after which it became the
new home of Greenville Community Church.
Pastor Karl Everett used to believe that people did not want pastors to lead.
After a year and a half into his pastorate at Rolling Hills Baptist Church in Pennsylvania,
he read about Joshua taking over after Moses’ death (Deut 34 and Josh 1). This passage
of Scripture led him to conclude that people did want to be led. Consequently, starting
with the deacons, the pastor made changes in his leadership style. If Everett perceived
the Lord telling him to do something, he followed God’s direction, but Everett also
listened to the counsel of the deacons. If the deaconate believed some actions should
wait, Everett was willing to wait.
In time, the deacons began to discern a change in their pastor’s approach to
leadership, and the Lord began to bless the pastor’s efforts in regard to doing new things.
This different approach by the pastor led to attitude changes among the deacons, and
then, filtered down to the congregation. In addition, the church provided finances and
worship leaders for the Saturday night service of its church plant.14
14Karl Everett, interview by Chris Gaskin, 2 February 2006, survey id 1159, Rolling Hills Baptist Church, PA.
93
Some key leadership factors for the Dover Christian Alliance Church in
Delaware, were the maturation of lay leaders, strategic planning, and prayer. Pastor
Derrick Keeling said, “One leader has worked to mentor and develop other small group
leaders; another trains evangelism teams. Some key leaders have decided they are going
to be true disciples of Christ and have really studied the scriptures. Also, we have studied
Growing Healthy Churches, a Christian and Missionary Alliance leadership training
program.”15
Time Management
After leadership, several questions were asked to gauge how comeback leaders
utilized their time. First, they were asked if “no change,” “some changes,” or “drastic
changes” occurred in their weekly schedule and time management in regard to the
comeback. Then, if some or drastic changes occurred, respondents were asked, “What
areas received a greater priority or emphasis of time for the pastor (sermon preparation,
personal evangelism, prayer, training members, etc.) and how?” Finally, respondents
were asked to indicate what areas received a greater priority or emphasis of time during
the comeback and what areas of responsibility, if any, might have been removed in order
to refocus time for comeback leaders. In Appendix 15, a sampling of responses regarding
time management has been provided.
These responses indicated several insights regarding time management. First,
since over forty percent of the comeback leaders stated that sermon preparation received
15Derrick Keeling, interview by Chris Gaskin, 30 January 2006, survey id
4004, Dover Christian Alliance Church, DE.
94
a greater priority or emphasis of time, many comeback leaders had felt the need and
carved out the time to focus more on study and message preparation. Even though time
demands and responsibilities increase as growth takes place, many of the comeback
pastors still made the effort to focus more on sermon preparation.
Second, a notable number of the respondents indicated that “people stuff”
received a greater priority or emphasis of time in regard to the comeback. The comeback
leaders spent more time doing visitation, staff management, mentoring, leadership
training, and counseling. As growth occurred, comeback churches were in a position to
hire new staff members, which meant the need to manage those new staff members. In
addition, growth meant more people to visit in the hospital and new prospects to visit in
their homes. Also, comeback leaders saw the need to train lay leaders to reach a higher
level of ministry involvement and commitment, which ultimately relieved time
constraints and responsibilities for comeback pastors.
Third, whether through hiring new staff members or lay people stepping up to
take over, many comeback leaders cited two key areas where their responsibilities were
reduced. The tasks of church administration and custodial work/building maintenance
were often removed from the list of responsibilities of comeback leaders. Some also
mentioned that they spent less time in meetings.
Several comeback leaders described changes in their management of time.
Pastor Reed Harley of the First Assembly of God in West Virginia, made schedule
changes in order to meet the growing demands of people’s needs. “The schedule change
was partially because of the growth. I had to make time for concentrated prayer for the
95
needs of my people. I also had to create more time for hospital and new prospect
visitation.”16
“My schedule changes came about as a result of our growth,” said Melvin
Bailey, pastor of Beaver Falls Baptist Church in Montana.17 As the church grew, more
people became involved in leadership, which required more meetings during the week for
service planning. Also, Pastor Bailey met with his staff an hour and a half before the
Sunday morning service for prayer. Making time for personal prayer and concentrated
sermon preparation times was difficult.
Bailey said about leadership, “If you don’t have a strong leader with strong
leadership skills, you’ll go nowhere.” When asked how he sees himself as a leader, he
said, “It’s terrifying to see a church grow under your leadership and then go home and
realize your own shortcomings.”18
Nelson Parker, pastor of Olive Branch Baptist Church in Arkansas, said his
church’s growth was the cause of his change in time management. “The addition of the
music, youth, education and children’s pastors required leadership training, staff
management and group prayer times. The growth required more outreach and visitation.
Personal prayer time and sermon preparation time also had to be scheduled differently.”19
16Reed Harley, interview by Chris Gaskin, 2 February 2006, survey id 3099, First Assembly of God, WV.
17Melvin Bailey, interview by Chris Gaskin, 2 February 2006, survey id 1116, Beaver Falls Baptist Church, MT.
18Ibid.
19Nelson Parker, interview by Chris Gaskin, 2 February 2006, survey id 1171, Olive Branch Baptist Church, AR.
96
Michael Bates, associate pastor for Misty Creek Assembly of God in
Oklahoma, said, “We hired a secretary with experience, so no training was necessary.
We also hired a custodian with experience. The pastor trained key leaders and let them
lead some meetings that were really unnecessary for him to attend.”20
Staff Changes
Following the issue of time management, the survey asked respondents about
the impact of pastoral or staff changes upon their churches’ turnarounds. When asked,
“Did the turnaround coincide with any significant pastoral or staff changes? YES/NO. If
yes, please briefly describe the changes without mentioning specific names of people,”
276 survey respondents answered “YES” to this question. Within those responses, over
29 percent of those churches that made a change in this area indicated that only the lead
pastor was changed. In addition, over 34 percent of the respondents indicated that the
lead pastor was changed as well as other staff. Therefore, over 63 percent of those
responding indicated that a change in the role of senior or lead pastor had been made.
As a pastor, this writer struggles with the possible ramifications of that finding.
Would almost two-thirds of the plateaued and declining churches need to change senior
or lead pastors in order to make a comeback? In some cases, maybe a church’s
plateau/decline could be related to the short tenure of many pastors over a period of time.
As Rainer’s study seemed to indicate in Breakout Churches, longevity appears to be a
positive factor in regard to church growth scenarios. In other words, maybe some
churches happened to come across a pastor who could lead the church into a growth
20Michael Bates, interview by Chris Gaskin, 2 February 2006, survey id 3128, Misty Creek Assembly of God, OK.
97
pattern more quickly, and that was the reason a comeback was made, while other
churches stayed in a pattern of plateau and decline because they kept changing pastors.
Studying the reasons behind these pastoral changes could be an excellent topic for further
study.
On the other hand, maybe this finding just indicated the need for change in
general, when a church was in a pattern of plateau and decline. This entire study was a
study about change. All these churches made or experienced change in regard to their
comebacks. As in sports, often organizations have found it easier to change the coach
rather than figure out how to change the players or other organizational dynamics. And
in many cases, making a coaching change altered the overall dynamics of the team in a
positive way. In addition, maybe fewer changes could be made in regard to the role of
senior or lead pastor if more pastors could be trained to make the right kinds of personal
and organizational changes. A sample list of the responses regarding pastoral or staff
changes was compiled in Appendix 16.
In regard to staff changes, the most significant finding cannot be ignored—
over 63 percent of 324 comeback churches indicated that a senior or lead pastor change
coincided with their comebacks. In addition to the senior or lead pastor, revitalization
involved other staff changes as well in over 34 percent of the comeback churches
surveyed.
As the responses indicate, four areas of ministry stood out in relationship to
pastoral or staff changes other than senior or lead pastor. “Youth” was mentioned in 37
percent of the “YES” responses. To some degree, this percentage coincided with the
ratings of various factors and the degree to which they changed during comeback (see
98
Figure 7); a majority of the respondents indicated that many changes were made in regard
to youth ministry. Also, “worship/music” was mentioned in 25.4 percent of the “YES”
responses. “Children” was mentioned in 13.8 percent of the “YES” responses. Also,
“secretary/ administration” was listed in 12 percent of the “YES” responses to this
question. In addition, some of the responses indicated that some comeback churches
hired staff to fill less traditional ministry roles such as audio-visual, small groups,
communications, assimilation, or congregational care. Last, some of the responses
indicated that changes were made in regard to the training and development of staff as
well as lay people.
Membership Requirements
After staff changes, survey respondents were asked about the relationship of
membership requirements to making a comeback. First, they were asked, “What were the
church’s membership requirements BEFORE the comeback started? Please answer “yes”
or “no” as I read each statement.” Then, respondents were given the following list of
items: water baptism, transfer of letter, tithe, new member class, statement of faith,
ministry involvement, signed covenant, small group participation, and other. Then, the
survey asked, “As your church made its comeback, did membership requirements stay the
same, become lower, or become higher?” Finally, the respondents who indicated that
they had lowered or raised their membership requirements were asked this specific
question, “If they changed, what requirements were added or removed?”
In response to the first question about membership requirements before the
comeback, almost all respondents required a statement of faith (94 percent). In addition,
almost as many indicated that they received people into membership based upon a
99
transfer of letter (92 percent). Also, 78 percent required baptism for membership. Other
factors rated the following: new member class (28 percent), signed covenant (22 percent),
tithe (21 percent), ministry involvement (9 percent), and small groups/Sunday School (2
percent). In the next follow-up question, 47 percent stated that their membership
requirements stayed the same, and the other 53 percent stated that their membership
requirements had been raised.
When asked that last question regarding membership requirements, only one
respondent indicated that his church lowered its membership requirements. This
significant discovery meant that all the responses to the last question, except one, were
given by comeback leaders who had raised membership requirements. How were
membership requirements raised? Almost all the respondents mentioned that they had
added a new member class (93.2 percent). A less significant factor, but important to
note, was that 33.9 percent also added a signed covenant to their membership
requirements.
Overall, the key finding was that the majority of comeback churches raised
their requirements in regard to membership, and all the rest (but one) maintained their
existing membership requirements. This finding indicated that churches may need to
raise expectations as part of developing an effective comeback strategy. The experience
of one comeback church illustrated this point.
Bart Smiley, pastor of Beaming Hill Baptist Church, in Nevada, said his vision
included leading all church members to a deeper level spiritually. First, Pastor Smiley
communicated this vision to his deacons. Once they agreed on this vision, a plan was
revealed to the committees and then discussed in small groups and Sunday morning
100
sermons. Finally, the plan was adopted at a church business meeting by a unanimous
vote. “This church was dead and ready to close its doors. They were desperate for
anything that might bring life. We know it is working because we have seen very few
people leave or stop coming to the church.”21 Their membership requirements were
changed to include the following: (1) a new member class and (2) a new members “boot
camp,” which was a one year journey consisting of classes in spiritual foundations,
spiritual formation, evangelism training, and then, spiritual equipping for ministry.
Worship
Following the questions regarding membership requirements, comeback
leaders were asked several questions regarding different aspects of worship—style or
mood, instrumentation, types of songs, and additional services. The responses regarding
instrumentation indicated that the majority of comeback churches tend to utilize a blend
of instruments with an overall preference toward less traditional instrumentation. Survey
respondents indicated that the more traditional instruments of piano and organ were used
in 71 percent and 30 percent of comeback churches, respectively. The less traditional
instruments of guitar, drums, and keyboard were used by 71 percent, 62 percent, and 61
percent of comeback churches, respectively. Music selections indicated an overall trend
toward a more contemporary approach, as well. Praise choruses, hymns, and
contemporary Christian were utilized in 90 percent, 75 percent, and 59 percent of
comeback churches, respectively.
21Bart Smiley, interview by Chris Gaskin, 2 February 2006, survey id 1218, Beaming Hill Baptist Church, NV.
101
In regard to additional services, less than 30 percent of the 324 respondents
answered this question. In addition, the majority of those answers discussed a
Wednesday night prayer and Bible study emphasis, not a worship service. Thus, this
question did not provoke a significant response from those surveyed in regard to the area
of worship.
The most significant finding in regard to worship came from the results of
asking about worship style or moods (see Figure 5). The top two responses indicated that
comeback churches utilized a “balanced” approach in regard to worship style—a balance
between being celebrative (96 percent) and orderly (95 percent). While comeback
leaders described their primary worship mood as celebrative, that did not mean the
worship experience was without structure—it was done in an orderly fashion. Moreover,
the next three highest responses in this category were informal (84 percent),
contemporary (69 percent), and expressive (62 percent). Analyzing these responses
together definitely pointed to an overall trend among comeback churches of being more
contemporary and less formal, especially when information about instrumentation and
music selections were combined with these results.
Follow-up interviews with a couple of comeback leaders illustrated how some
comeback churches combined these elements. Northside Baptist Church in Tennessee,
had services that were orderly, celebrative, and informal in nature. Pastor Gary Lewis
explained, “‘Orderly’ means the services are planned out. ‘Celebrative’ applies to the
fact that the music is a blend of hymns and choruses, and there is clapping, raising of
102
hands and greeting. ‘Informal’ applies to the casual or business casual dress. The
services are similar to the style of Hillsongs, mixed with hymns.”22
Pastor Frank Reed described the services at Rocky Knoll Wesleyan Church in
Utah: “‘Orderly’ applies to the structured pattern of the service. It is not a restrictive feel;
the worship leader may add a song if he feels led. Songs, announcements, prayer, etc.,
may not always be in the same order. ‘Celebrative’ applies to the exuberant clapping and
the greeting of one another. ‘Informal’ applies to dress. This is a farming community,
and most people wear jeans or casual clothes. There is also an informal atmosphere.”23
Preaching Style
After questions regarding worship, the survey asked about the preaching style
utilized in comeback churches (see Figure 6). While it was difficult to analyze these
results in any significant way because respondents were not asked for further
information, follow-up interviews seemed to indicate two important factors in regard to
preaching style: (1) pastors selected their preaching style based upon their own personal
preference, and (2) pastors changed styles or selected a style in some cases because of
context.
Clay Reese, associate pastor of the Canyon Assembly of God in Idaho, gave his
assessment of Pastor Alvin Myers’ preaching style choices, “The topical style is a
22Gary Lewis, interview by Chris Gaskin, 3 February 2006, survey id 1097, Northside Baptist Church, TN.
23Frank Reed, interview by Chris Gaskin, 3 February 2006, survey id 6003, Rocky Knoll Wesleyan Church, UT.
103
personal choice for Pastor Myers. This style seems to work well for the people. They
come away with a better understanding of how scripture applies to life.”24
Pastor Guy Childress of the North Country Church of the Nazarene in New
Hampshire, stated, “Topical preaching requires a thesis and a ‘take home principal.’”25
Because themes and topics seemed to reach his congregation, often North Country’s
services, from class themes to songs to messages, were set around a central concept.
Childress made a final observation, “We haven’t figured it all out, but we’re transforming
lives. It [the key to growth] is relevant ministry that connects with people on a heart
level.”26
At Blue Lake Church of the Nazarene in North Carolina, Pastor Bradley
Lamont said his journey took him through two or three different preaching styles. Pastor
Lamont tried both narrative and inductive styles, and he felt that the thematic style was
best. He chose themes based on the church calendar and important topics of the day,
which seemed to be the best format for his congregation.27
Comeback Changes
In the final set of numeric responses, those being surveyed were asked to
respond to a list of factors and rate the degree to which they changed during the
24Clay Reese, interview by Chris Gaskin, 4 February 2006, survey id 3134,
Canyon Assembly of God, ID. 25Guy Childress, interview by Chris Gaskin, 3 February 2006, survey id 8033,
North Country Church of the Nazarene, NH.
26Ibid.
27Bradley Lamont, interview by Chris Gaskin, 3 February 2006, survey id 8042, Blue Lake Church of the Nazarene, NC.
104
comeback—“To what degree did the following change during your church’s comeback?”
(see Figure 7). The top two responses rated above 3.8 on the scale of 1 to 5; they were
prayer (3.83) and children’s ministry (3.82). Four other factors were fairly close in rating
as well—evangelism (3.78), youth ministry (3.76), leadership (3.73), and missions (3.68).
After missions, the ratings dropped in a significant way among the rest of the factors.
Because of the constraints of space and time, only the top two items rated in response to
this question have been analyzed briefly here. Furthermore, the items rated third
(evangelism), fourth (youth), and fifth (leadership) have already been discussed.
In addition, note that preaching rated next to last among all the factors listed
and surveyed in this question. In his books Effective Evangelistic Churches and
Surprising Insights, Thom Rainer sighted the vital significance of preaching in
relationship to church growth. The findings in this study do not necessarily contradict
those findings. In this instance, comeback pastors were simply conveying that their
preaching style had not changed significantly during the comeback. They were not
evaluating the importance of preaching in regard to the revitalizations of their churches.
Also, many comeback leaders already indicated that they started spending
more time in sermon preparation in a previous question, and they rate preaching among
the top three factors for making a comeback according to the results of one of the final
questions asked in the survey. Comeback leaders rated prayer as the top factor.
Prayer. Prayer was a significant factor mentioned within many of the survey
responses. Strategic prayer rated 4.13 when surveyed as a component of vibrant faith.
Prayer was also mentioned as an important aspect of time management for comeback
leaders; prayer became a higher priority among many comeback leaders who changed the
105
way they spent their time. In addition, prayer was mentioned as an important aspect in
the responses regarding influential people (see this summary topic below). In this part of
the survey, comeback leaders indicated that many changes were made in regard to prayer
during the comeback. Changes in prayer were analyzed further through a follow-up
interview process where comeback leaders were asked to describe how changes were
made in this area.
A Saturday morning prayer meeting was the first project for Pastor Wally
Stevens of the Louisville Church of the Nazarene in Kentucky. Next came a prayer lab—
an entire Sunday morning service of music and prayer for the community. The lab
occurred twice per year. Other prayer related items included twenty-four hour prayer
vigils twice per year, church-wide prayer chains, and one preaching series per year
specifically on prayer. The staff also met to pray four days per week at nine in the
morning.28
At The Vision Center in Chicago, Dick Tarrant was Director of Ministry
Development and Associate Pastor; he intimated that the key to The Vision Center’s
growth was prayer. “The staff has prayer meeting once per week. We also make sure to
have short times of prayer every day.”29 The church had a service focused on corporate
prayer two or three times per year. In addition, monthly healing services were held and a
24-hour prayer hotline was utilized.
28Wally Stevens, interview by Chris Gaskin, 27 January 2006, survey id 8009,
Louisville Church of the Nazarene, KY.
29Dick Tarrant, interview by Chris Gaskin, 27 January 2006, survey id 3019, The Vision Center, IL.
106
“The only tools used were scriptures” said Larry Fitzgerald, pastor of First
Baptist Church in Arizona, when a new emphasis was given to prayer during Wednesday
evening services.30 Pastor Fitzgerald read scriptures dealing with prayer and then led the
church to focus on praying for the needs of the church based on those scriptures. This
pastor’s belief in the power of prayer caused others to believe. This church was $109,000
in debt in July 2001; they were completely debt-free by November 2002! In addition, the
giving continued to increase. Once a dying church, this church was now alive and
ministering to the community around them.
Children’s ministry. When surveyed, a significant majority of comeback
leaders indicated that the area of children’s ministry changed in many ways during the
comeback. In follow-up interviews, some comeback churches were asked to describe the
changes that took place in their children’s ministries. Why was this area of ministry rated
in such a significant way among comeback churches and their leaders?
Mike Davidson, pastor of Praise Baptist Church in North Dakota, explained
that children’s ministry “has been extremely important for us. We have used this avenue
to reach people in a predominately Mormon community who came because their children
had first attended one of our events.”31 Pastor Davidson saw the need for a more
effective children’s ministry. The church tried many different programs and found that
30Larry Fitzgerald, interview by Chris Gaskin, 31 January 2006, survey id 1079, First Baptist Church, AZ.
31Mike Davidson, interview by Chris Gaskin, 3 February 2006, survey id 1207,
Praise Baptist Church, ND.
107
AWANA worked best for them. They had children from families who were members,
regular attenders, sporadic attenders, and some whose families did not attend at all.
In regard to Sunday, two couples did an excellent job with the children’s
worship time. A certain level of enthusiasm and a passion for the children was exhibited
by the adult leaders. Children’s ministry was a major reason that revitalization occurred
at Praise Baptist Church.
Barrington Baptist Church in Vermont, had a dynamic children’s ministry that
took off in the last several years. Pastor Wesley Clayton was a musician as well as a
pastor. He utilized a band comprised of members in the church, which formed when he
first came as pastor. Forming that band influenced the children to form their own
worship band, which was made up of people from age nine to adult and was geared
specifically toward children. Children learned to play instruments on their own and
gained practical experience as they participated in the worship services.
Other children’s ministry events included a yearly emphasis focused on
children in the Sunday morning worship service, summer VBS, and activities on
Saturdays during the summer based on themes. Another example of creative children’s
ministry was also provided. When a Messianic Jew came to the church during a sermon
on the Battle of Jericho, he marched around the sanctuary in a circle with the children and
blew the shofar. At that time, the pastor asked if the walls of the church would fall
because of the marchers’ expression of faith; a pre-planned sound effect of crashing walls
108
was heard in the sanctuary. The church in Barrington made ministering to, challenging,
and creating a child-friendly environment a priority.32
According to Pastor Larry Keller of the Hope Assembly of God in New
Mexico, the key to a more effective children’s ministry was placing the right people in
the right places of ministry. “A lady who was more gifted in music was leading the
children’s ministry. She was unorganized, undisciplined and not a gifted teacher. We
reluctantly replaced her (she was such a nice lady) with someone who has an elementary
education degree. Now, we are using new curriculum; we need more teachers, and the
children are telling their parents that they want to come to church! The teachers received
on-the-job training from the director.” 33
Summary Issues
In the last section of the survey, respondents were asked four summary
questions. Respondents were asked about helpful books, influential people, top factors,
and biggest challenges. Asking about these issues was a helpful way to round out this
study.
Helpful Books
The first summary question was, “What three books (other than the Bible)
were the most helpful in your transition?” The most frequently referenced resources
were connected to the Purpose Driven model. In follow-up interviews, we sought to gain
32Wesley Clayton, interview by Chris Gaskin, 3 February 2006, survey id 9002, Barrington Baptist Church, VT.
33Larry Keller, interview by Chris Gaskin, 7 February 2006, survey id 3030, Hope Assembly of God, NM.
109
insights on how some of the books and resources mentioned by comeback leaders made a
positive, practical impact upon comeback churches and their leaders.
Pastor Miles Spencer, of the New Gospel Center in Florida, said, “The
Purpose-Driven Life helped bring focus to what a balanced life of the believer should
look like. The 40 Days of Purpose helped us launch our small groups.”34 According to
Pastor Daniel Karver of The Church at Annapolis, Warren’s books helped them refocus
their ministry for the entire Maryland region. “The Purpose-Driven Church served as the
basis for a total shift in focus for the church. We made major changes in our bylaws,
allowing most decisions to be made by our deacons and staff. We also initiated the
membership 101 class, including the signed member covenant.”35
For Billy Jaspers, pastor of First Baptist Church in Wyoming, John Maxwell
had been very influential in his life, both as a person and as a pastor and leader. “In The
Twenty-One Irrefutable Laws of Leadership, the two points most influential to me, and
cardinal, are ‘The Law of the Buy-In’ and ‘The Law of the Lid.’ People aren’t going to
buy into the vision until they can buy into you. With the Law of the Lid, God has
designed you do to something. The question is what are you doing with what God has
given you? Like it has been said, everything rises and falls on leadership.”36
34Miles Spencer, interview by Chris Gaskin, 3 February 2006, survey id 3017,
New Gospel Center, FL.
35Daniel Karver, interview by Chris Gaskin, 3 February 2006, survey id 1045, The Church at Annapolis, MD.
36Billy Jaspers, interview by Chris Gaskin, 4 February 2006, survey id 1211, First Baptist Church, WY.
110
Pastor Steve Morrison, of the First Assembly of God in Texas, played football
in high school and college. In those contexts, he saw leaders and followers in action.
“The Twenty-One Irrefutable Laws of Leadership helped mold me into the leader I am
today. I am more informed and try to put everything I learn into practice. I mentor
leaders to deal with problems I don’t need to deal with, which lessens my load
tremendously.” Quoting Maxwell, Pastor Morrison said, “Management is doing things
right. Leadership is doing the right things.” He then said, “I’d much rather do the right
things.” 37
Two apparent insights were revealed from the survey responses and these
interviews. The first insight was that comeback leaders were learners. Almost 92 percent
of all the church leaders surveyed listed books or resources that had been helpful to them
in ministry. The second insight was that these comeback churches and their leaders
sought to practically apply insights from those books and resources strategically in
ministry.
Influential People
After being asked about helpful books, respondents were asked to identify key
people who influenced the comeback in a positive way. The respondents were asked this
specific question, “What three people were the most influential during your church’s
comeback and what role did they play in the process?” Several key insights were
apparent when the survey responses were analyzed.
37Steve Morrison, interview by Chris Gaskin, 3 February 2006, survey id 3058,
First Assembly of God, TX.
111
First, 321 out of 324 respondents provided responses to this question, which
displayed that comeback leaders realized the vital importance of people. Whether they
named specific deacons, leaders of different ministries, certain lay people, or their wives,
comeback leaders recognized that making a comeback did not depend on their efforts
alone, and they readily identified others who had made an impact in revitalization.
Second, two key words among the responses pointed out two types of people
who made an impact in regard to church revitalization. Those two words were “lead” and
“support”—both mentioned in 56.4 percent of the responses. In other words, comeback
respondents recognized that both leaders and supporters were significant influencers in
regard to the revitalization process.
Third, in discussing influential people, respondents used two other key words
in a significant number of responses—“passion” in 35.5 percent of the responses and
“vision” in 30.8 percent of the responses. People who helped lead in and support the
comeback process were often described as passionate and connected to the church’s
vision. Apparently, respondents saw these as key elements that helped make the people
listed influential.
Top Factors
After being asked about influential people, survey respondents were asked to
identify the top three factors that led to their church being revitalized. The survey asked
this specific question, “What are the top 3 factors that led to your church being a
‘comeback church’?” Overall, the top three responses were “prayer,” “evangelism/
outreach,” and “preaching.” These words were identified in 44.7 percent, 37.2 percent,
112
and 25 percent of the responses, respectively. Several comeback pastors described how
these elements were emphasized and combined in the comeback process.
The Oregon Trail Church of the Nazarene in Nevada, had grown through an
increase in evangelistic zeal, experienced by Pastor Terry Williams and the members
themselves. Pastor Williams emphasized the importance of the church’s weekly prayer
meetings. Prayer for salvation, healing, and other needs was emphasized. Outreach
events, including the REACH program, as well as a weekly visitation program, were
strongly promoted. The REACH evangelism training was conducted by lay people who
had already been through the program. 38
Harry Milton, of the Gary Church of the Nazarene in Indiana, explained the
need to be sensitive to his congregation because he came on staff immediately following
a split in the church. Milton immediately set the church’s priorities as (1) prayer, (2)
leadership, and (3) evangelism. Most often these priorities were conveyed through his
sermons. “The people of the church were so desperate for anything that would give them
life and growth.”39
New Life Assembly of God in Texas, established a relationship with three
churches of other denominations. One major evangelistic event sponsored by the four
churches was a joint showing of “The Passion of the Christ.” New Life has also
participated in Assembly of God evangelism events. The church also conducted in-house
witnessing seminars. In addition, a resource that helped New Life become more
38Terry Williams, interview by Chris Gaskin, 7 February 2006, survey id 8011, Oregon Trail Church of the Nazarene, NV.
39Harry Milton, interview by Chris Gaskin, 3 February 2006, survey id 8031,
Gary Church of the Nazarene, IN.
113
evangelistic was Contagious Christians by Bill Hybels, according to Pastor Greg
Arbuckle.40
Biggest Challenges
After being asked about top factors, survey respondents were asked to identify
the biggest challenges their churches faced in making a comeback. The survey asked this
specific question, “What were the biggest challenges facing your church during the
transformation from its plateau/decline to its revitalization?” Three major issues surfaced
in the responses to this question—attitude, finances, and facilities. Since the issue of
facilities has already been discussed and was placed third after attitude and finances, this
section has focused on those two items mentioned as the biggest challenges.
Attitude. Attitude surfaced as the biggest challenge among comeback
respondents through words and phrases like change, tradition, mindset, mentality,
disunity, small church, and small town. In follow-up interviews, some comeback leaders
were asked to describe how they overcame these attitude challenges.
Pastor Lenny Bryan of the Hopewell Church of the Nazarene in South
Carolina, said, “I just really preached on the purpose of the church using Ephesians 3.”
The church organized a community carnival called “Family Fest” in which they had
games and activities for kids, music, and door prizes for adults. Anyone who came had
to register for the door prizes, which gave the church a prospect list. Bryan added,
“However, they knew up front they would receive an information packet from the
40Greg Arbuckle, interview by Chris Gaskin, 7 February 2006, survey id 3085,
New Life Assembly of God, TX.
114
church.”41 The church did excellent follow-up on those prospects, which resulted in a
new attitude. A by-product of the attitude change came in the form of a new youth and
children’s building (the church was mostly older couples with no youth or children). The
church had overcome a poor attitude, in part, by sponsoring the outreach event.
Sparkle Road Baptist Church in Georgia, used focused campaigns to spur its
attitude change. “Several things led to our new attitude,” said Pastor Burton Caldwell.
“Two major events were the 40 Days of Purpose and 40 Days of Community campaigns.
Also, we make our services positive and inviting, which helped with visitors.”42 Two
other contributors to the attitude change were FAITH and a strong Vacation Bible
School.
According to Mark Samuelson of Bush Trail Baptist Church in Massachusetts,
“Experiencing God and The Purpose-Driven Church helped in our change. They both
helped us see clearly Christ’s mission for the church.” The empowerment of lay leaders,
increased reconciliation, service, and missions involvement, helped the people of Bush
Trail change their prevailing attitude. Concerning missions involvement, Samuelson
offered, “God really blessed us when we became a mission-minded church.” 43
Westside Baptist Church in South Dakota, was down to nine members in 1998
when Randy Priestly came to be a bi-vocational pastor. According to Priestly, “The
41Lenny Bryan, interview by Chris Gaskin, 7 February 2006, survey id 8041,
Hopewell Church of the Nazarene, SC.
42Burton Caldwell, interview by Chris Gaskin, 7 February 2006, survey id 1015, Sparkle Road Baptist Church, GA.
43Mark Samuelson, interview by Chris Gaskin, 7 February 2006, survey id 1143, Bush Trail Baptist Church, MA.
115
church had no mission, vision or excitement for ministry. I came in, under the Lord’s
leading, and empowered the people to do ministry. I led by example. I have a ‘no-
nonsense’ approach to leadership. My leaders now are proactive and excited about
ministry because it is more enjoyable.” 44 By 2004, the church’s morning worship
attendance was seven hundred forty-four.
Finances. After attitude, comeback respondents cited finances as the next
biggest challenge to a comeback. Over 21 percent of the respondents mentioned a lack of
financial resources as one of their biggest challenges in making a comeback. In follow-
up interviews, some comeback leaders were asked to describe how they overcame this
revitalization challenge.
Pastor Justin James of the Clear Creek Baptist Church in West Virginia,
brought the church’s financial needs before the people. Also, financial needs were placed
in the church’s newsletter, which circulates to 175 non-member, prayer, and support
partners in and out of the state. The financial needs of the church were met through
prayer and the practical steps of informing those who can help financially.45
Clint Davidson, pastor of Park Place Baptist Church in California, said, “Park
Place is unique in that we are debt free. Whenever a need arises, we seek counsel from
the Lord and our church leaders. When the decision is made that the need is legitimate,
we put forth a campaign, challenging our people to give to the need. The Lord has
44Randy Priestly, interview by Chris Gaskin, 7 February 2006, survey id 1201,
Westside Baptist Church, SD. 45Justin James, interview by Chris Gaskin, 7 February 2006, survey id 1101,
Clear Creek Baptist Church, WV.
116
always allowed us to raise the money to pay for the needs immediately. It is a great
challenge because most of our members are in the low income bracket. But our theme
verse is Philippians 4:19.”46
Peter Preston, pastor of the First Assembly of God in Louisiana, said, “We
don’t stop doing the things that need to be done. We just become more creative in our
approach.” One example of creative financing was the church’s Valentine’s Banquet,
which required substantial financial resources. Rather than paying for items, the church
asked businesses to donate decorations, candy, and other related items. In addition,
rather than underwriting the costs of mission trips, the church required its members to
raise money for the mission trips which they took. Pastor Preston said, “This makes the
trip more meaningful for everyone involved.” 47 Finally, this church family discussed and
prayed for its financial needs during the weekly age-graded prayer meetings.
Conclusion
Survey respondents provided a substantial pool of data and information in this
study of 324 comeback churches. According to the results of this survey, these church
growth factors were rated as having a greater effect to a lesser effect on revitalization:
leadership, vibrant faith, lay ministry, evangelistic efforts, small groups, facilities, and
marketing. Statistically, a significant difference was evidenced between the first four
46Clint Davidson, interview by Chris Gaskin, 7 February 2006, survey id 1059,
Park Place Baptist Church, CA. 47Peter Preston, interview by Chris Gaskin, 7 February 2006, survey id 3109,
First Assembly of God, LA.
117
factors listed and the last three factors listed. Conclusions about these findings have been
outlined in the next chapter.
In addition, survey results have pointed toward a particular style of worship.
Almost all comeback churches perceived their worship as “celebrative” and “orderly.”
Also, the large majority of churches that were surveyed defined their worship mood as
“informal,” “contemporary,” and “expressive.” Conclusions have been drawn regarding
this finding in the next chapter as well.
Three other significant findings were related to staff changes, prayer, and
children’s ministry. Almost two-thirds of the comeback churches cited making a change
in the role of senior or lead pastor in connection with making a comeback. In regard to
areas of ministry that changed most significantly during the comebacks, prayer and
children’s ministry were rated the highest.
While these findings have not described all the observations that could be
made about church revitalization based on this project, the factors listed above
represented the most significant findings of this study. Hopefully, this analysis of survey
results has provided insights that can spark many other churches toward revitalization. In
the final chapter, conclusions have been drawn regarding the comeback process and the
overall findings of this study.
118
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS
The Church must be forever building, and always decaying, and always being restored. . . . The Church must be forever building, for it is ever decaying within and attacked from without; for this is the law of life. . . Much to cast down, much to build, much to restore. Let the work not delay, time and the arm not waste. Let the clay be dug from the pit, let the saw cut the stone, let the fire not be quenched in the forge.1
From its inception, the church has followed that very pattern throughout its
history—growing, decaying, and being restored. As this writer asserted in chapter one,
the state of the North American church has been in a period of time when it is decaying.
Segments of the North American church have been in a pattern of plateau and decline.
What would it take for a significant number of those churches to be restored, renewed, or
revitalized? Is there a process that plateaued or declining churches can follow to make a
comeback, to move from being stuck and stagnant to vibrancy and growth?
Comeback Process
In this study, 324 comeback churches were surveyed in order to seek answers
to that question. How did 324 churches start growing again after experiencing a pattern
of plateau or decline? Based upon the information gathered in this study, some church
1T. S. Eliot, Collected Poems 1909-1962 (New York: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1991), 153-54.
119
growth factors were perceived to be more important than others by comeback leaders.
When asked to rate certain church growth factors, survey respondents rated them in the
following order (from greater effect to smaller effect on a five point scale): leadership
(4.17), vibrant faith (3.95),2 lay ministry (3.87), evangelism (3.67), small groups (3.14),
facilities (3.04), and marketing (2.91).
From category to category, the largest statistical drop in rating occurred
between evangelism and small groups. This drop was an indicator that the comeback
leaders surveyed perceived that leadership, vibrant faith, lay ministry, and evangelism
were the most significant factors in the revitalization process, in that order. Of lesser
importance were small groups, facilities, and marketing.
One key purpose of this study was to test the premise that certain factors,
identified by the CGM, would be vital influences in churches that were experiencing
revitalization. Those factors were leadership, evangelism, lay ministry, small groups,
vibrant faith, and worship. While these church growth factors were present in most of the
comeback churches, the factor of small groups was deemed least influential in this group
through the survey process. If this research finding was valid, this discovery about small
groups could indicate that small groups may not have been as important to the
revitalization process as the CGM perceived it might have been.
Facilities and marketing were factors added to the survey process because they
were identified as other possible key components of church revitalization by this writer.
2Five aspects of vibrant faith were rated. The ratings of the five aspects
(renewed belief 4.44, servanthood 4.23, strategic prayer 4.13, setting goals 3.48, and relationships 3.47) were averaged (3.95) to rank vibrant faith second among the other factors.
120
While facilities and marketing were significant factors for some comeback churches in
this study, their overall ratings placed them last in the list of rated factors. This finding
has indicated that the noted writers in the CGM were right not to include these two
factors in their writings in a more significant way.
Worship was not listed among the rated factors because it was surveyed in a
different manner than the other components. Conceptually, all churches engaged in some
form of worship. Of greatest importance was to distinguish in some way how different
churches worshipped, specifically, how 324 comeback churches worshipped. In order to
gauge worship in these churches, two key aspects of worship were surveyed—mood of
worship and style of preaching.
Based upon the results of this survey, almost all comeback churches identified
their mood of worship as “celebrative” and “orderly” with a significant emphasis on
being “informal” and “contemporary.” Most survey respondents perceived their worship
mood as balanced between celebration and order. In addition, a slight majority of the
surveyed churches utilized an expository, verse-by-verse style of preaching, although
three other preaching styles were used a fairly significant amount of the time.
If the research findings are valid, it would be reasonable to expect that
churches and pastors desiring to make comebacks will need to utilize the following
principles as guidelines to attain revitalization. First, leadership is the most important
factor in making a comeback; it is rated as the most significant factor by comeback
leaders. Also, the importance of leadership is reflected in the fact that almost two-thirds
of the churches surveyed experienced a change in the person serving in the role of senior
or lead pastor in regard to making a comeback.
121
Survey respondents identified several important components of leadership in
their responses—the development of an attitude of growth, intentionality and proactivity,
shared ministry, and the activation of a shared vision. Comeback leaders are not willing
to settle for a slow or no growth mentality; maintaining a small church mindset is not an
option. They are willing to identify and make necessary changes and set growth goals.
Survey respondents describe an environment where the ministry is shared with the people
based upon a common vision.
Second, vibrant faith is a significant factor in revitalization, particularly,
renewed belief in Jesus Christ and the mission of the church. If the percentages hold true
in the larger picture of North American churches, then what churches believe about the
person of Jesus and about God’s mission for the church really matters. Creating a
renewed focus and emphasis on Jesus is vital to making a comeback. Believers need to
experience the reality of Jesus Christ in their everyday lives. Then, in order to create an
atmosphere of renewed belief, comeback leaders will want to find ways to translate that
belief into practical activity.
Third, an atmosphere of lay mobilization is also very important in the
revitalization process. Lay people being actively involved in meaningful ministry is a
significant factor in church renewal. If the research discoveries are valid, increased
expectations, equipped people, and empowered people are key components of developing
an atmosphere of lay ministry involvement.
Fourth, churches will want to be more intentional about their evangelistic
efforts. Those churches that make plans to reach out to the people in and around their
communities, and then, prepare people to engage in those outreach efforts will be more
122
likely to experience renewal. In addition, if the research findings are accurate, then
churches should not necessarily expect to discover only one effective evangelistic
strategy. These 324 comeback churches use many different strategies and methods of
outreach. Thus, the discovery of evangelistic methods or strategies which work best for a
given church may take a while to discover. Those churches that have the desire to be
revitalized will want to engage in intentional outreach efforts, become active agents of
community service, and pray for the Spirit of God to draw people to Jesus.
Fifth, if the research indicators are valid, a “celebrative” and “orderly” mood
of worship is a very significant factor in revitalization. If worship in a church cannot be
described as “celebrative” and “orderly,” then that church might want to find ways to
gradually introduce some energy, enthusiasm, and contemporary flavor into its worship
experience.
In some cases, churches and pastors might want to consider making changes in
regard to other factors such as small groups, facilities, and marketing, but these factors
are not as important or influential as leadership, vibrant faith, lay ministry, evangelistic
efforts, and worship, according to the findings of this study. Overall, the most significant
aspect of this study is that it proves revitalization can occur; 324 churches are comeback
congregations. Revitalization can happen, and this study reveals some insights that will
help churches that want to get on the comeback pathway.
Comeback Obstacles
In one of the summary questions, survey respondents were asked to identify
the biggest challenges which they had faced in regard to making their comebacks. The
two most prominent issues identified by comeback leaders were attitude and finances.
123
If a comeback movement is going to take place in North America, these same
issues will likely be obstacles for many other churches as well. If these research
discoveries hold true in the larger picture of churches in North America, then many other
plateaued or declining churches will likely struggle with a small church mindset, a slow
growth mentality, a no-growth mentality, a maintenance mindset regarding traditions, or
a fear of change. The issue is, “Do the people in plateaued or declining churches really
want to grow?”
According to some of the comeback leaders interviewed, these attitude issues
can be addressed in practical ways. In some cases, an attitude of growth can be created
by utilizing good tools and resources like the Purpose Driven materials. In all cases, an
attitude adjustment toward growth will involve influencing people to change.
In regard to finances, money is always a necessary resource to conduct
ministry and live life. If the research discoveries hold true in the larger context of
plateaued and declining churches, some of them will see a lack of finances as a major
obstacle to revitalization. Some of the follow-up interviews reveal the need for prayer
and creativity in overcoming this obstacle.
One indicator within this study reveals another potentially huge comeback
obstacle—leadership. If the research findings are valid, it would be reasonable to expect
that nearly two-thirds of plateaued or declining churches may need to change their lead
pastors as part of making their comebacks. In a scenario like this, many pastors and their
families could face a very difficult future. What can be done to address this vital
leadership issue? In addition, where would thousands of plateaued or declining churches
find enough pastors who are ready to fill that many roles in stagnant churches?
124
Other Matters
Churches can address comeback obstacles and create a movement toward
revitalization by making changes, and consequently, reverse the overall trend toward
decline and stagnation. First, healthy church growth will require that churches not live in
denial of their problems; stagnant churches will need to change their mindset. Churches
will have to clearly and specifically acknowledge that they are in a pattern of plateau and
decline, and then, seek to discover the reasons behind that pattern. Before plateaued and
declining churches can be revitalized, they will need to realize the unhealthy patterns
which exists in their midst. As this writer reflects on this issue, only one solution comes
to mind—prayer for revitalization. God will need to awaken his church to its state of
decay.
Second, a system to train pastors in how to overcome growth obstacles and
engage in the comeback process would be extremely beneficial. If the state of plateau
and decline among segments of the North American church is valid and the findings of
this study regarding leadership are accurate, then pastors could be trained to become
effective comeback leaders. From 324 churches that have made comebacks, many other
churches and pastors can learn some important lessons about revitalization and be
encouraged to engage in the process of revitalization.
Third, this study contains a couple of significant limitations in regard to the
research conducted. One limitation relates to some aspects of the survey instrument. The
findings would be more statistically valid if all of the questions were mutually exclusive.
In addition, not all the terms are defined for survey respondents, specifically the terms for
125
worship moods. Defining those terms would strengthen the results in this category and
might provide different results.
Another significant limitation in this study is that it does not include very
many responses from lay people. Their inclusion would provide a different set of results
or, at least, a different perspective on the revitalization process. An important follow-up
study could be done by seeking the responses of lay people within the same churches that
have been surveyed in this project.
Conclusion
Three hundred and twenty-four comeback churches from ten denominations
participated in this phone survey. For the most part, the results affirmed the tenets of the
CGM that were identified in this study. Comeback leaders described a process of
intentional change, especially in the areas of leadership, renewed belief, lay ministry, and
evangelism. In addition, they described their worship as celebrative, orderly, and rather
informal and contemporary.
While segments of the North American church are in a period of decline or
stagnation according to sources mentioned in chapter one of this dissertation, this study
reveals that there is hope for struggling and declining churches. Churches can be
restored, renewed, and revitalized. This writer hopes that this study in revitalization will
help many churches and their leaders recognize that some things need to be torn down
(slow or no-growth attitudes) and some things need to be built and restored (leaders, laity,
and a path to revitalization). May the work of revitalization not be delayed.
126
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Allen, Roland. Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.
________. The Spontaneous Expansion of the Church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.
Arn, Charles. How to Start a New Service: Your Church Can Reach New People. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997.
Arn, Win, ed. The Pastor’s Church Growth Handbook. Vol. 1. Pasadena, CA: Church Growth Press, 1979.
Avery, William O. Revitalizing Congregations: Refocusing and Healing through Transitions. The Alban Institute, 2002.
Barber, Cyril. The Dynamics of Effective Leadership: Learning from Nehemiah. Rev. ed. Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1991.
Barna, George. Grow Your Church from the Outside In. Ventura, CA: Regal Books from Gospel Light, 2002.
________. The Second Coming of the Church: A Blueprint for Survival. Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1998.
________. Turn-Around Churches: How to Overcome Barriers to Growth and Bring New Life to an Established Church. Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1993.
Belew, M. Wendell. Churches and How They Grow. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1971.
Buttry, Daniel. Bringing Your Church Back to Life: Beyond Survival Mentality. Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1988.
Cho, Paul Yonggi, with Harold Hostetler. Successful Home Cell Groups. Plainfield, NJ: Logos International, 1981.
Cho, Paul Y., with R. Whitney Manzano. More Than Numbers. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1984.
127
Cole, Neil. Cultivating a Life for God: Multiplying Disciples through Life Transformation Groups. St. Charles, IL: ChurchSmart Resources, 1999.
Dale, Robert. Leadership for a Changing Church: Charting the Shape of the River. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998.
Dever, Mark. Nine Marks of a Healthy Church. Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 1997.
Dudley, Carl S. and Nancy T. Ammerman. Congregations in Transition: A Guide for Analyzing, Assessing, and Adapting in Changing Communities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002.
Easum, William M. and Dave Travis. Beyond the Box: Innovative Churches That Work. Loveland, CO: Group Publishing, 2003.
Eliot, T. S. Collected Poems 1909-1962. New York: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1991.
Ellis, Joe S. The Church on Target: Achieving Your Congregation’s Highest Potential. Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, 1986.
Engle, Paul E., and Gary L. McIntosh, eds. Evaluating the Church Growth Movement: 5 Views. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004.
Fowler, Harry H. Breaking Barriers of New Church Growth. Rocky Mount, NC: Creative Growth Dynamics, 1988.
Frazee, Randy, with Lyle E. Schaller. The Come Back Congregation: New Life for a Troubled Ministry. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995.
Getz, Gene A. Sharpening the Focus of the Church. Rev. ed. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1984.
Gleason, Michael. Building on Living Stones: New Testament Patterns and Principles of Renewal. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1996.
Goodwin, Steven J. Catching the Next Wave: Leadership Strategies for Turn-Around Congregations. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1999.
Gruder, Darrell L., ed. Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998.
Hemphill, Ken. The Antioch Effect: 8 Characteristics of Highly Effective Churches. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999.
Herrington, Jim, Mike Bonem, and James H. Furr. Leading Congregational Change: A Practical Guide for the Transformational Journey. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.
128
Hunt, Josh. Let It Grow: Changing to Multi-Congregation Churches. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.
Hunter, Kent R. Foundations for Church Growth. New Haven, MO: Leader Publishing Company, 1983.
Johnson, Douglas W. Vitality Means Church Growth. Creative Leadership Series. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989.
Jordan, James B., ed. The Reconstruction of the Church: A Symposium. Tyler, TX: Geneva Ministries, 1985.
Logan, Robert E. Beyond Church Growth: Action Plans for Developing a Dynamic Church. Grand Rapids: Fleming H. Revell, 1989.
Logan, Robert E., and Thomas T. Clegg. Releasing Your Church's Potential: A Natural Church Development Resource Kit. Carol Stream, IL: ChurchSmart Resources, 1998.
Macchia, Stephen A. Becoming a Healthy Church: 10 Characteristics. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.
Malphurs, Aubrey. Advanced Strategic Planning: A New Model for Church and Ministry Leaders. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000.
________. Planting Growing Churches for the 21st Century: A Comprehensive Guide for New Churches and Those Desiring Renewal. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992.
________. Pouring New Wine into Old Wineskins: How to Change a Church without Destroying It. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993.
________. Vision America: A Strategy for Reaching a Nation. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994.
Mann, Alice. Can Our Church Live? Redeveloping Congregations in Decline. Bethesda, MD: The Alban Institute, 1999.
Martoia, Ron. Morph: The Texture of Leadership for Tomorrow’s Church. Loveland, CO: Group Publishing, 2002.
McGavran, Donald Anderson. How Churches Grow: The New Frontiers of Mission. New York: Friendship Press, 1966.
McGavran, Donald A. Understanding Church Growth. Edited by C. Peter Wagner. Rev. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970; reprint, 1991.
129
McGavran, Donald A., and George G. Hunter III. Church Growth Strategies That Work. Creative Leadership Series. Nashville: Abingdon, 1980.
McGavran, Donald A., and Win Arn. How to Grow a Church. Glendale, CA: G/L Publications, 1973.
________. Ten Steps for Church Growth. San Francisco: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1977.
McIntosh, Gary, and Glen Martin. Finding Them, Keeping Them: Effective Strategies for Evangelism and Assimilation in the Local Church. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992.
McIntosh, Gary L. Biblical Church Growth: How You Can Work with God to Build a Faithful Church. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2003.
Mead, Loren B. The Once and Future Church: Reinventing the Congregation for a New Mission Frontier. Washington, DC: The Alban Institute, 1991.
Mittelberg, Mark, with Bill Hybels. Building a Contagious Church: Revolutionizing the Way We View and Do Evangelism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000.
Mundey, Paul. Unlocking Church Doors: 10 Keys to Positive Change. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997.
Neighbour, Ralph W., Jr., with Lorna Jenkins. Where Do We Go from Here? A Guidebook for the Cell Group Church. Houston: Touch Publications, Inc., 1990.
Nelson, Allan, and Gene Appel. How to Change Your Church without Killing It. Nashville: Word Publishing, 2000.
Nevius, John L. Planting and Development of Missionary Churches. Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1958.
Nixon, David F. Leading the Comeback Church: Help Your Church Rebound from Decline. Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 2004.
Rainer, Thom S. The Book of Church Growth: History, Theology, and Principles. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993.
________. Breakout Churches. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.
________. Effective Evangelistic Churches: Successful Churches Reveal What Works and What Doesn’t. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996.
________. High Expectations: The Remarkable Secret for Keeping People in Your Church. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999.
130
________. Surprising Insights from the Unchurched and Proven Ways to Reach Them. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.
Reeder, Harry L., III, with David Swavely. From Embers to a Flame: How God Can Revitalize Your Church. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2004.
Richards, Lawrence O. A New Face for the Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970.
Robinson, Darrell W. Total Church Life: Exalt, Equip, Evangelize—Church Growth Strategy. Rev. ed. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993.
Roxburgh, Alan, with Mike Regele. Crossing the Bridge: Church Leadership in a Time of Change. Costa Mesa, CA: Percept Group, 2000.
Rusaw, Rick, and Eric Swanson. The Externally Focused Church. Loveland, CO: Group Publishing, 2004.
Russell, Ronny. Can a Church Live Again? The Revitalization of a 21st Century Church. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2004.
Scazzero, Peter, with Warren Bird. The Emotionally Healthy Church: A Strategy for Discipleship That Actually Changes Lives. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003.
Schaller, Lyle. E. Discontinuity and Hope: Radical Change and the Path of the Future. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998.
Schwarz, Christian A. Natural Church Development: A Guide to Eight Essential Qualities of Healthy Churches. Carol Stream, IL: Church Smart Resources, 1996.
Schwarz, Christian A., and Christoph Schalk. Implementation Guide to Natural Church Development. Carol Stream, IL: ChurchSmart Resources, 2001.
Shawchuck, Norman, and Gustave Rath. Benchmarks of Quality in the Church: 21 Ways to Continuously Improve the Content of Your Ministry. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994.
Shawchuck, Norman, and Lloyd M. Perry. Revitalizing the Twentieth-Century Church. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.
Sisemore, John T. Church Growth through the Sunday School. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1983.
Snyder, Howard A. Radical Renewal: The Problem of Wineskins Today. Houston: TOUCH Publications, 1996.
________. Signs of the Spirit: How God Reshapes the Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1989.
131
Southerland, Dan. Transitioning: Leading Your Church through Change. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000.
Spader, Dann and Gray Mayes. Growing a Healthy Church: Complete with Study Guide. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.
Stedman, Ray C. Body Life. Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1972; twentieth printing, 1986.
Stetzer, Ed. Planting New Churches in a Postmodern Age. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003.
Tidsworth, Floyd. Lifecycle of a Congregation. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.
Tillapaugh, Frank R. Unleashing the Church: Getting People out of the Fortress and into Ministry. Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1982.
Towns, Elmer L., and Ed Stetzer. Perimeter of Light: Biblical Boundaries for the Emerging Church. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2004.
Towns, Elmer, C. Peter Wagner, and Thom S. Rainer. The Everychurch Guide to Growth: How Any Plateaued Church Can Grow. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998.
Troeger, Thomas H. Preaching While the Church Is Under Construction. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999.
________. Ten Strategies for Preaching in a Multi Media Culture. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996.
Trudinger, Ron. Cells for Life—Home Groups: God’s Strategy for Church Growth. Plainfield, NJ: Logos International, 1979.
Van Gelder, Craig. The Essence of the Church: A Community Created by the Spirit. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000.
Wagner, C. Peter. Church Growth and the Whole Gospel. San Francisco: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1981.
________. The Healthy Church: Avoiding and Curing the 9 Diseases That Can Afflict Any Church. Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1996.
________. Leading Your Church to Growth. Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1984.
________. Strategies for Church Growth: Tools for Effective Mission and Evangelism. Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1987.
________. Your Church Can Grow. Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1976; rev. ed. 1984.
132
________. Your Spiritual Gifts Can Help Your Church Grow. Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1979.
Wagner, C. Peter, ed., with Win Arn and Elmer Towns. Church Growth: State of the Art. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1986.
Walling, Terry. Focused Ministry Resource Kit. Carol Stream, IL: ChurchSmart Resources, 1999.
White, James Emery. Rethinking the Church: A Challenge to Creative Redesign in an Age of Transition. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2003.
Wood, Gene. Leading Turnaround Churches. St. Charles, IL: ChurchSmart Resources, 2001.
Interviews
Arbuckle, Greg. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 7 February 2006. Survey id 3085. New Life
Assembly of God, TX.
Bailey, Melvin. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 2 February 2006. Survey id 1116. Beaver Falls Baptist Church, MT.
Bates, Michael. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 2 February 2006. Survey id 3128. Misty Creek Assembly of God, OK.
Bellamy, Frank. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 1 February 2006. Survey id 10005. Lighthouse Baptist Church, MI.
Bryan, Larry. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 7 February 2006. Survey id 8041. Hopewell Church of the Nazarene, SC.
Caldwell, Burton. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 7 February 2006. Survey id 1015. Sparkle Road Baptist Church, GA.
Childress, Guy. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 3 February 2006. Survey id 8033. North Country Church of the Nazarene, NH.
Clayton, Wesley. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 3 February 2006. Survey id 9002. Barrington Baptist Church, VT.
Davidson, Clint. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 7 February 2006. Survey id 1059. Park Place Baptist Church, CA.
Davidson, Mike. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 3 February 2006. Survey id 1207. Praise Baptist Church, ND.
133
Everett, Karl. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 2 February 2006. Survey id 1159. Rolling Hills Baptist Church, PA.
Ewing, Todd. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 27 January 2006. Survey id 8048. Flowing
River Ministries, MS.
Fitzgerald, Larry. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 31 January 2006. Survey id 1079. First Baptist Church, AZ.
Haley, Ervin. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 26 January 2006. Survey id 8057. Beacon Church, WA.
Harley, Reed. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 2 February 2006. Survey id 3099. First
Assembly of God, Millerton, WV. James, Justin. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 7 February 2006. Survey id 1101. Clear Creek
Baptist Church, WV.
Jaspers, Billy. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 4 February 2006. Survey id 1211. First Baptist Church, WY.
Karver, Daniel. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 3 February 2006. Survey id 1045. The Church at Annapolis, MD.
Keeling, Derrick. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 30 January 2006. Survey id 4004. Dover
Christian Alliance Church, DE.
Keller, Larry. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 7 February 2006. Survey id 3030. Hope Assembly of God, NM.
Lamont, Bradley. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 3 February 2006. Survey id 8042. Blue Lake Church of the Nazarene, NC.
Lewis, Gary. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 3 February 2006. Survey id 1097. Northside
Baptist Church, TN. Milton, Harry. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 3 February 2006. Survey id 8031. Gary
Church of the Nazarene, IN.
Morrison, Steve. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 3 February 2006. Survey id 3058. First Assembly of God, TX.
Neville, Harry. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 1 February 2006. Survey id 1189. Outreach Pointe Baptist Church, LA.
Nutley, Ellis. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 26 February 2006. Survey id 8008. West Point Church of the Nazarene, NY.
134
Parker, Nelson. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 2 February 2006. Survey id 1171. Olive Branch Baptist Church, AR.
Pettis, Nate. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 31 January 2006. Survey id 4005. Greenleaf Community Church, CT.
Preston, Peter. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 7 February 2006. Survey id 3109. First Assembly of God, LA.
Priestly, Randy. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 7 February 2006. Survey id 1201. Westside Baptist Church, SD.
Reed, Frank. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 3 February 2006. Survey id 6003. Rocky Knoll Wesleyan Church, UT.
Reese, Clay. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 4 February 2006. Survey id 3134. Canyon Assembly of God, ID.
Roberts, David. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 7 February 2006. Survey id 1064. Heap Baptist Church, GA.
Samuelson, Mark. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 7 February 2006. Survey id 1143. Bush Trail Baptist Church, MA.
Smiley, Bart. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 2 February 2006. Survey id 1218. Beaming Hill Baptist Church, NV.
Spencer, Miles. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 3 February 2006. Survey id 3017. New Gospel Center, FL.
Stevens, Wally. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 27 January 2006. Survey id 8009. Louisville
Church of the Nazarene, KY.
Tarrant, Dick. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 27 January 2006. Survey id 3019. The Vision Center, IL.
Topper, Ned. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 2 February 2006. Survey id 1113. Greenville Community Church, SC.
Williams, Terry. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 7 February 2006. Survey id 8011. Oregon Trail Church of the Nazarene, NV.
Yaley, Mark. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 2 February 2006. Survey id 1098. Blue Collar Baptist Church, OH.
Yoder, Ted. Interview by Chris Gaskin, 2 February 2006. Survey id 3046. Cross Lake
Center, MN.
135
Articles
“Back from the Brink: A Leadership Special Report.” Leadership 26 (2005): 24-35.
“A Controlled Burn: A Leadership Interview.” Leadership 26 (2005): 55-58.
Glasser, Arthur F. “Church Growth at Fuller.” Missiology 14 (October 1986): 401-20.
Guenther, Jim. “The Plateaued Church—Is There Any Hope?” The Messenger 33 (2005): 10-11.
Hadaway, C. Kirk. “From Stability to Growth: A Study of Factors Related to the Statistical Revitalization of Southern Baptist Congregations.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 30 (June 1991): 181-92.
Jarrell, Joreen. “Revitalization: Can These Bones Live?” Church & Society 78 (September/October 1987): 26-30.
MacDonald, Gordon. “Clean Out the Sludge: A Theology of Turnaround.” Leadership 26 (2005): 37-41.
May, Stan. “The Plateaued Church—Is There Any Hope?” The Messenger 33 (2005):8-9.
Mulholland, Kenneth. “Donald McGavran’s Legacy to Evangelical Missions.” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 27 (January 1991):64-70.
Noblit, Jeff. “Is It Ever God’s Will for a Church to Plateau or to Decline?” The Messenger 33 (2005): 8-10.
Oaks, Fred. “Renewing Older Churches.” Leadership 26 (2005): 47-49. Schaller, Lyle E. “Schaller: Courageous Leaders Can Say ‘It Ain’t Workin’.’” Penn-
Jersey Baptist 36 (2006): 10.
Wagner, C. Peter. “Aiming at Church Growth in the Eighties.” Christianity Today 21 (November 1980): 24-27.
Other Resources
Barna, George. “Number of Unchurched Adults Has Nearly Doubled Since 1991.” The
Barna Update (4 May 2004) [on-line]. Accessed January 2006. Available from http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=163; Internet.
Britt, David Tillman. “Local Factors in Urban American Church Growth: Two Protestant Denominations in Jefferson County, Kentucky.” Ph.D. diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1985.
136
Crabtree, John Albert. “The Divergence of Donald McGavran’s Church Growth Movement in North America 1955-2000.” Ph.D. diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2004.
“Church Revitalization Resources in Canada,” (2003) [on-line]. Accessed October 2005. Available from http://christianity.ca/church/growth/2003/06.002b.html; Internet.
Hudnut, Robert K. “The Role of the Pastor in Church Revitalization.” Chapel message, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, CA5633, 1983. Audiocassette.
Rainer, Thom S. “An Assessment of C. Peter Wagner’s Contributions to the Theology of Church Growth.” Ph.D. diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1988.
Stetzer, Ed. “Church Growth When the Formulas Don’t Work.” On Mission (summer 2004) [on-line]. Accessed October 2005. Available from http://www.onmission. com/site/c.cnKHIPNuEoG/b.830473/k.36B4/Church_growth_when_the_formulas_dont_work.htm; Internet.
________. “Closing the Back Door.” On Mission (November-December 2003) [on-line]. Accessed November 2005. Available from http://www.onmission.com/site/c. cnKHIPNuEo G/b.830375/k.6EA3/Closing_the_back_door.htm; Internet.
________. “Finding New Life for Struggling Churches.” SBC Life (February-March 2004) [journal on-line]. Accessed October 2005. Available from http://www.sbclife. org/articles/2004/02/sla4.asp; Internet.
________. “The Missional Nature of the Church and the Future of Southern Baptist Convention Churches.” Presented to the Baptist Center for Theology and Ministry Conference, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. February 12, 2005.
________. “Stirring the Waters.” On Mission (fall 2004) [on-line]. Accessed October 2005. Available from http://www.onmission.com/site/c.cnKHIPNuEoG/b.829293/ k.D33B/Stirring_the_Waters.htm; Internet.
________. “Stirring the Waters.” On Mission (fall 2005) [on-line]. Accessed January 2006. Available from http://www.onmission.com/site/c.cnKHIPNuEoG/b.1076081/ k.A622/Stirring_the_watersFall_2005.htm; Internet.
________. “Stirring the Waters.” On Mission (summer 2005) [on-line]. Accessed November 2005. Available from http://www.onmission.com/site/c.cnKHIPNuEoG/ b.913773/ k.D32A/Stirring_the_waters.htm; Internet.
________. “Stirring the Waters.” On Mission (winter 2005) [on-line]. Accessed October 2005. Available from http://www.onmission.com/site/c.cnKHIPNuEoG/b.830521/ k.D281/Stirring_the_waters.htm; Internet.
ABSTRACT
AN ANALYSIS OF FACTORS LEADING
TO THE REVITALIZATION OF
COMEBACK CHURCHES
John Michael Dodson, D.Miss. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2006 Chairperson: Dr. George Martin
This dissertation examines some church growth factors and how they impacted
324 comeback churches. Chapter 1 explains the tremendous need for many North
American churches to make a comeback because of their unhealthy state. Next, there is a
brief discussion of the background of church revitalization.
Chapter 2 reviews some of the writings, key leaders, and proponents of the
CGM. Several themes emerge in these writings with regard to church revitalization—
vibrant faith, evangelism, leadership, lay ministry, small groups, and worship.
Chapter 3 describes the research process and how data and information have
been collected from comeback churches and leaders. Data and information are presented.
Chapter 4 analyzes in greater detail the individual components of the
comeback process and their impact upon the turnaround made by 324 churches.
Chapter 5 outlines conclusions about the overall process and key obstacles of
church revitalization. Suggestions are made for improving the current state of the North
American Church.
VITA
John Michael Dodson PERSONAL
Born: December 13, 1966, Manassas, Virginia Parents: John R. and Phyllis E. Dodson Married: Kelly Ford June 22, 1991
EDUCATIONAL
Diploma, Fauquier County High School, Warrenton, Virginia B.B.A. in Finance, James Madison University, 1989 M.Div., Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary
MINISTERIAL
Church Plant Intern, Trinity Baptist Church, Niskayuna, New York, 1989-1994 Pastor, North Country Baptist Church, Berlin, New Hampshire 1994-1996 Church Planter Strategist, Northwest Pennsylvania, 1996-2000 Pastor, New Hope Community Church, Meadville, Pennsylvania, 2001-2006
SPECIALIZED TRAINING NAMB Assessment Process, certified assessor Basic Training for Church Planter’s, certified presenter Mentor & Supervision Training—Levels I & II Billy Graham School of Evangelism
