Goal 3: Modify the Knowledge, Confidence
only 74 percent of the class participants were providing informal care six weeks after the conclusion of the project. Possible explanations for the decrease could be that people finished the process of care, the counselee chose to end the sessions, the sessions were paused due to the holidays, or participants learned in class the definition of biblical care and realized what he/she counted as biblical care on the pre-class survey was actually something else. Therefore, they did not include it on the post-class survey.
The assumption leading into the class was that many church members were not currently practicing informal care in the church. A pre-class survey of twenty-three class participants revealed that 82 percent were practicing informal care in the church. A couple of reasons for why the pre-class survey percentage of class participants was this high are (1) CBC has already emphasized and equipped people to care for one another over the last three years; and (2) the people participating from neighboring churches were pastors and leaders.4 The reasoning behind the goal was to measure practice. The hope was for the project to positively impact class participants so that more people would serve Christ by providing informal care. Of the fifty-three people who participated in the class, most, if not close to all, attended and met the five-session requirement to be qualified as a class participant. The video recording greatly assisted with this requirement. Unfortunately, thirty post-project surveys were not completed. If they were, it is probable that the 82 percent statistic would have been lower. If the pre-class survey of participants is any indicator, it identified 60 percent of the fifty-three people surveyed were practicing informal care in the church at the beginning of class. If that were then compared to the post-project survey of 77 percent of the twenty-six people who were proving informal care, then the increase would have been 17 percent.5
4 Surveys were anonymous and did not identify what church the participant was attending.
5 Three participants completed the post-project survey that were not included as class participants because the four-digit comparison code was blank and a comparison could not be made.
In conclusion, many people stated how the class helped them become a better counselor. As well, the specific questions on counseling before and after the six class sessions also indicated that participants were engaged in providing care to one another.
Ultimately, the results are in God’s control.
Strengths of the Project
The first strength of this project was the introductory approach to equipping people in the church to care for one another. There are plenty of resources available on biblical counseling, but most are written toward a specific problem in life or training formal biblical counselors. The approach to this class was to equip people with a basic framework for biblical care and encourage them to act rather than dismissing the person when approached. Of CBC Brewerton attendees assessed, 98 percent have been asked by another person for advice on a difficult life problem, but only 15 percent felt equipped to respond. The lack of knowledge and belief to respond were further recognized in class participants who took the pre-class survey: (1) 70 percent did not think addressing the heart is a crucial element in caring for others, even though 90 percent believed they understood the process of spiritual growth; (2) 68 percent had not previously received equipping in biblical care; and (3) 40 percent were excluding the practice of regularly caring for others even though they understood the call and responsibility to do it.
The second strength of this project was the weekly projects for growth in the curriculum.6 The projects for growth were intended to extend the teaching element to be throughout the week rather than a one-time interaction. Too often, information can be heard and never interacted with again. The projects for growth also provided practical training that prepared a person for the first encounter in caring for someone. Since the projects for growth were reviewed at the beginning of each class, class participants had
6 See appendix 4.
the ability to interact and ask questions from actual experience rather than hypothetical situations. All three expert panel members commended the use of projects for growth and believed it provided a better learning experience for the class participants who did them.
Weaknesses of the Project
The first weakness of the project encompassed the curriculum review. There were two aspects to this problem: the timing of the review and the tool provided for the panel members to use. The goal was to have a complete review of the curriculum for the panel members to review before the class began so improvements could be made if necessary. To accomplish this, more time should have been allowed for this process. In moving the project implementation timeframe forward to the fall of 2022 instead of the winter/spring of 2023, the window of time decreased. As stated previously, this did not affect the overall quality of the content, but the review modification limited a full review before the beginning of the class. The second weakness regarding the curriculum review was the rubric. All members of the panel gave a 100 percent score. The men were gracious, but I agree with the one panel member who suggested a five-scale ranking rather than the four-scale ranking. This would have allowed for a more detailed response. No curriculum is perfect, but I do believe this deficiency in the scale was offset by the personal interaction during the writing of the curriculum.
A second weakness in the project was the gathering of post-project surveys.
Since one of the goals was to increase the practice of informal care, it was not appropriate to ask participants to begin caring for others until one-half of the class content was taught.
This meant the post-project survey could not be completed until six weeks after the conclusion of class. To help participants complete this post-project survey, a digital form was e-mailed to everyone in the class. However, only twenty-three of the original fifty- three participants completed it properly. One limitation to being a class participant was the requirement to participate in five of the six sessions. To aide participants with this
requirement (a rash of COVID/flu swept through the Syracuse area during the six-week class timeframe), all classes were video recorded and made available so participants could still qualify for completing the post-project survey. Nonetheless, a lower rate of post-class surveys were used in research.