The research design was an explanatory mixed-methods study that examined SBC churches in three phases.
1Data collection began by contacting Lifeway Research to obtain Annual Church Profile (ACP) data on select SBC churches. All churches designated for the second phase met the following selection criteria: (1) the church had ACP data for 2006-2016, (2) the church experienced 10 percent or greater decline in worship attendance over the five-year period prior to the turnaround, and (3) the church experienced at least 10 percent annual growth in worship attendance for at least 2 of 5 years following the turnaround while maintaining a 20:1 worship attendance to baptism ratio in the same years.
2There were 716 churches selected for phase 2. They were invited to participate in
1 The research protocol for phase 1 and phase 2 was conducted as part of a research team consisting of six doctoral students under the supervision of Michael Wilder. While team members carried out different responsibilities, the product of the research was a joint effort. In protocol explanations, there is no effort to distinguish the actions of particular team members.
2 Thom Rainer identified 20:1 attendance to baptism ratio as criteria for an evangelistically effective church. Thom Rainer, Effective Evangelistic Churches: Successful Churches Reveal What Works and What Doesn’t (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996), 35. Since the purpose of this study was to identify revitalized churches and not merely churches experiencing numerical growth, the criteria recognized by
a survey administered electronically consisting of 24 questions pertaining to church revitalization and eight demographic questions, including two questions pertaining to willingness to participate in phase 3 if selected (see appendix 3). Phase 3 participants were purposefully selected and invited to participate in an interview pertaining to evangelistic emphasis given during the revitalization process. Selection criteria for phase 3 interviews included the following: (1) the pastor indicated that evangelism was important or highly important during the revitalization process, (2) the pastor showed at least some
differentiation between areas of importance,
3(3) the pastor indicated that he agreed or strongly agreed to at least one of the three specific evangelism questions,
4and (4) the pastors represented a diversity of congregational sizes and ministry contexts. Interviews with selected churches were conducted by telephone or video-conference via Face Time.
These interviews were recorded and the interviews were transcribed (see appendix 4).
Interviews were analyzed to identify principles and best practices among the revitalized churches and leaders.
Phase 1
In phase 1, a request was made to Lifeway Research to identify churches that existed in 2016, which was the most current year of data for ACP information at the time the request was made. In that year, 28,046 churches existed that had sufficient data to
Rainer were employed. According to the SBC, based on 47,272 cooperating churches in 2016, the average weekly attendance was 5,200,773 with annual baptisms of 280,773. This yields an attendance to baptism ratio of 18.52:1. Southern Baptist Convention, “Fast Facts about the Southern Baptist Convention,” October 9, 2017, accessed December 22, 2017, http://www.sbc.net/BecomingSouthernBaptist/pdf/FastFacts2017.pdf.
3 Responses where the person surveyed evaluated all areas (evangelism, leadership, discipleship, prayer, etc.) as “highly important” were eliminated with preference being given to investigate churches in which differentiation was displayed in their rankings.
4 The three specific evangelism questions in the survey were as follows: (1) There was a demonstrable increase in personal evangelism among active members of the church; (2) The majority of active members could communicate the gospel in a personal evangelism encounter; (3) The active members of the church regularly engaged in gospel conversations for the purpose of personal evangelism.
calculate their five-year worship attendance trend during 2011-2016.
5Among these churches, 26 percent were growing churches, 26 percent were plateaued, and 49 percent were declining. All churches with incomplete data required for the study were then eliminated, and 3,364 churches remained. Narrowing of the sample churches was completed according to the following criteria: (1) worship attendance in 2011 had declined 10 percent or more compared to 2006 (5 years prior), and (2) worship attendance in 2016 had grown 10 percent or more over 2011 levels (5 years prior) yielding 1,266 churches. The field was then further narrowed by eliminating
congregations that (1) had less than 10 percent annual growth for 2 of the last 5 years, or (2) had less than 2 of the last 5 years with a minimum worship attendance to baptism ratio of 20:1. We then narrowed further by requiring that the turnaround churches had to have both 2 years of 10 percent worship growth per year and 20:1 baptism ratio. These actions resulted in the identification of 716 churches, or 5.24 percent of the original churches which were declining.
6Isolating the churches in decline yet still revitalized gave the research the opportunity to observe the most extreme cases of church revitalization.
Learning from those churches and pastors who witnessed God help them grow to heights coming from the greatest depths will certainly help churches which find themselves in more minor cases of decline or plateau as well.
Phase 2
The population of 716 churches was divided among the research team to identify or verify contact information. The pastors of the churches in the population were emailed
5 It should be further noted that according to the 2017 Book of Reports of the 2017 Southern Baptist Convention (Nashville), 8, there were actually 46,793 churches reported as participating in the SBC. Thus, our research team was only considering just over half of the potential SBC churches across the country.
6 Of the 28,046 churches with reported ACP data, both the “growing” churches (25.60 percent) and the “plateaued” (25.71 percent) were removed from this calculation and no longer part of the population in need of revitalization. The above 5.24 percent was calculated by dividing 716 churches by 13,656, which were in decline in the year 2016.
an invitation to participate in a survey on church revitalization, along with a link to the survey instrument (see appendix 3). Each participant in the first seven days of the survey that agreed to participate in phase 2 if selected was offered an incentive. Following the initial seven-day period, members of the research team divided those churches that had not responded and contacted them to enlist participation. Some follow-up calls revealed that several churches did not have access to email; therefore, hard copies of the survey instrument were provided to facilitate participation. After several weeks, responses slowed so the research team made an additional and more aggressive effort to contact potential participants within the sample that had not returned the survey. The efforts resulted in responses from 129 churches as of September 13, 2018.
7The survey instrument consisted of eight demographic related questions and 24 questions related to aspects of revitalization, including discipleship, evangelism, leadership, missions, prayer, and the primary worship gathering. The questions consisted of multiple-choice, rating according to a Likert-type scale, prioritization of items, and open-ended responses. Questions were provided to an expert panel of pastors and denominational leaders with expertise in church revitalization for review and consultation before distributing the survey instrument.
8Their comments were helpful in making final revisions to the survey instrument before it was distributed to the research sample via SurveyMonkey.
Phase 3
Interview candidates were purposefully selected from survey respondents that indicated a willingness to participate in a follow-up interview in question 6. Additional
7 The data analyzed in this phase is pulled in process and is part of an ongoing study; however, it is expected that while other members of the research team are continuing to seek further participation in the study, the results of the final analysis will be consistent with the analysis reported in this chapter.
8 The expert panel consisted of pastors and scholars who have experienced and written on the subject of church revitalization. The panel included Brian Croft (Biblical Church Revitalization, 2016), Andrew Davis (Revitalize, 2017), Phillip Nation (Transformational Discipleship, 2012), and Joseph Stephen Hudson (“A Competency Model for Church Revitalization in Southern Baptist Churches,” 2017).
selection criteria for phase 3 interviews included the following: (1) the pastor indicated that evangelism was important or highly important during the revitalization process, (2) the pastor showed at least some differentiation between areas of importance,
9(3) the pastor indicated that he agreed or strongly agreed to at least one of the three specific evangelism questions,
10and (4) the pastors represented a diversity of congregational sizes and ministry contexts. After confirming with the research team that selected churches were not overlapping, interviews were conducted by telephone or video-conference via Face Time. Interviews were analyzed to identify principles and best practice among the revitalized churches and leaders. Pastors were identified based upon the selection criteria and 12 in-depth interviews were completed.
The interviewees represented an average of 20 years of ministry experience and 9 years tenure in the revitalized church. The interviewees ranged in age from 35 to 67 years old (see table 1).
Table 1: Pastor age, tenure in local church and cumulative experience
Minimum Maximum Range Mean Median
Pastor’s Age 35 67 32 48 46
Tenure in the Church 2 34 32 9 6
Years of Ministry Experience 6 34 28 20 21
Before the interview portion of the research began, a pilot test was run with another pastor in my local Baptist Association to ensure that all recording mechanisms and protocol processes were tested. Referring to pilot testing, Lesley Andres writes, “Pilot
9 Responses where the person surveyed evaluated all areas (evangelism, leadership, discipleship, prayer, etc.) as “highly important” were eliminated with preference given to investigate churches in which differentiation was displayed in their rankings.
10 The three specific evangelism questions in the survey were as follows: (1) There was a demonstrable increase in personal evangelism among active members of the church; (2) The majority of active members could communicate the gospel in a personal evangelism encounter; (3) The active members of the church regularly engaged in gospel conversations for the purpose of personal evangelism.