For phase 2, the 716 “revitalized” churches were invited to participate in a survey (see appendix 1). The research team divided up the sample of 716 churches in order to verify contact information. The researchers then sent an email (see appendix 2) to the 716 churches, proving an invitation to participate in a survey on church
revitalization in June 2018. The email invitation provided a link to the survey instrument, and an incentive was offered to each participant who completed the survey within seven days and agreed to participate in a follow-up interview (if selected). After this initial seven-day period, researchers attempted to contact the churches that had not responded to the initial email invitation in order to solicit their participation. Paper copies of the survey were also made available to church leaders who had indicated that they did not use email for communication. Once participation slowed, the researches called non-responsive churches again to solicit more participation in the survey. As of September 13, 2018, after repeated emails and phone calls to encourage more response, 129 churches had responded to the survey with a confidence interval of 7.82.6 At that time, the team
churches, including those that were plateaued or growing. The resulting sample of 716 churches represented 5.24 percent of the declining church population (13,656).
6 The research team was comprised of students from three different cohorts of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary who began their studies in 2016, 2017, and 2018. Because the 2016 cohort would graduate earlier, two of the students finalized their projects at this point of the study. The remaining students in the 2017 and 2018 cohorts continued to solicit more participants for the phase 2 survey in an attempt to raise the confidence level. For the 2016 cohort results, see Christopher Michael Aiken, “Church Revitalization and the Role of Pastoral Leadership: A Mixed Methods Study” (EdD thesis, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2018); Aaron Thomas Colyer, “Church Revitalization and Evangelistic Emphasis: A Mixed Methods Study” (EdD thesis, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2018). For 2017 cohort results see Dean C. Clark, “Transforming the Prayer Culture in Church Revitalizations: A Mixed Methods Study,” (EdD thesis, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2019); Brian C. Legg,
“Transforming the Discipleship Culture in Church Revitalization: A Mixed-Methods Study,” (EdD thesis, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2019); Donald R. Sanders, “Transforming the Leadership Development Culture in Church Revitalizations: A Mixed Methods Study,” (EdD thesis, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2019).
decided to further limit the sample to churches with worship attendance greater than fifty people in 2016.7 This additional delimitation resulted in a population of 466 churches.
To encourage more responses to the phase 2 survey and to raise the confidence level, the research team sent paper copies of the survey with a postage paid return
envelope to the 466 churches in April 2019. This distribution was followed up with additional attempts to call and email church leaders to encourage the completion of the survey. The final number of completed surveys was 145 out of the 466 potential respondents. This resulted in a confidence level of 6.71.
The survey instrument consisted of eight demographic questions and twenty- four questions related to aspects of revitalization, including discipleship, evangelism, leadership, missions, prayer, and the primary worship gathering (see appendix 1). An expert panel of pastors and denominational leaders with expertise in church revitalization provided review, insight, and feedback for the survey questions.8 The research team chose different churches that met their selected criteria and made efforts to avoid overlapping church leaders in the interview process.9
Using the 145 survey responses, a third delimitation produced a list of
7 The team decided to exclude churches with fifty or less due to the small numeric threshold needed to achieve an increase or decrease. For example, a few people’s leaving or joining the church could change the designation from declining to growing.
8 The expert panel consisted of Mark Clifton, Senior Director of Replanting/Revitalization for the North American Mission Board (NAMB) of the SBC and author of Reclaiming Glory: Revitalizing Dying Churches (Nashville: B&H, 2016); Brian Croft, Senior Fellow at the Mathena Center for Church Revitalization and author of Biblical Church Revitalization: Solutions for Dying & Divided Churches, 2016; Andrew M. Davis, author of Revitalize: Biblical Keys to Helping Your Church Come Alive Again (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2017); Eric Geiger, Michael Kelley, and Philip Nation, revitalization pastors and co-authors of Transformational Discipleship: How People Really Grow (Nashville: B&H, 2012); and Joseph Stephen Hudson, author of “A Competency Model for Church Revitalization in Southern Baptist Convention Churches: A Mixed Methods Study” (PhD diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2017).
9 Team members from the 2017 and 2018 cohorts provided the remaining team members with a list of the pastors whom they interviewed. The remaining team members then submitted their interview choices to one another and compared the results for overlap. If overlap occurred, then the team members negotiated between themselves for particular pastors to interview or contacted the pastor to determine whether he would mind being interviewed by more than one researcher.
churches that emphasized mission culture development in the revitalization process.
From this group, churches must have met one of four criteria: (1) rated “Missions” as
“Important” or “Highly Important” on item 8, (2) provided an answer that described how changes in the church’s “missions ministry” contributed to revitalization on item 18, (3) showed a significant shift on either item 19 to item 20 from a pre-revitalization stance of
“Strongly Disagree” or “Disagree” to a post-revitalization stance of “Agree” or “Strongly Agree,” and (4) indicated on item 22 that a missional focus leadership practice was
“Highly Important” or “Important.”10 This delimitation produced a list of 23 churches that met the criteria for a “mission culture” church. Table 3 illustrates the delimitation and sampling of the study.
Table 3. Delimitations and sampling survey
Phase Delimitation Description Number
1 1 Total SBC churches in 2016 47,272
1 1 Churches with sufficient data 28,046
1 1 Declining Churches 13,656
10 Survey item 8: “Rate each ministry emphasis as to the importance it played in the revitalization process. (Highly Unimportant, Unimportant, Slightly Unimportant, Slightly Important, Important, Highly Important.)” The ministry choices were discipleship, evangelism, leadership, missions, prayer, primary worship gathering, other.
Survey item 18: “Briefly describe the primary changes to the church’s missions ministry which you perceive have contributed significantly to the revitalization process (open-text response).”
Survey item 19: “Select your level of agreement with the following statements concerning the church’s missions ministry prior to the revitalization process. (Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Slightly Disagree, Slightly Agree, Agree, Strongly Agree.) a. The church had a vibrant missions ministry focused on financially supporting short-term and/or long-term missionaries. b. The church had a vibrant missions ministry focused on sending short-term and/or long-term missionaries from its own membership.”
Survey item 20: “Select your level of agreement with the following statements concerning the church’s current missions ministry. (Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Slightly Disagree, Slightly Agree, Agree, Strongly Agree.) a. The church had a vibrant missions ministry focused on financially supporting short- term and/or long term missionaries. b. The church had a vibrant missions ministry focused on sending short-term and/or long-term missionaries from its own membership.”
Survey item 22: “Indicate how important each of the following leadership practices have been in the revitalization process in your ministry context. (Highly Unimportant, Unimportant, Slightly
Unimportant, Slightly Important, Important, Highly Important.) a. Building Momentum b. Conceptual Thinking c. Contextual Awareness and Planning d. Developing Others e. Getting Members Engaged f.
Gospel Orientation g. Individual and Corporate Repentance h. Information Seeking i. Initiative j.
Interpersonal Understanding k. Missional Focus l. Organizational Awareness m. Relationship Building n.
Teamwork and Cooperation o. Transparency p. Willingness to Confront/Church Discipline.”
Phase Delimitation Description Number
1 2 Plateaued Churches 7,211
2 2 Met revitalization criteria 1 and 2 3,364
1 2 Met revitalization criterion 3 716
2 3 Worship attendance >50 466
2 3 Responded to phase 2 survey 145
2 4 Met mission culture criteria 23
2 4 Purposeful maximal variation sample 12