94
A telephone survey was the means by which the prospective members were contacted to determine their continued interest in membership and whether they would participate in The Starting Point (they were told what The Starting Point was during the conversation) or the next membership orientation class. The telephone survey results were received at the final training session. The comments section on the reporting sheet included notes about the time called, the content of the conversation, and whether the callers were able to leave a message if they did not reach the person. Through the survey the team uncovered a variety of information: parking was an issue for one; a few were relocating or had relocated; at least three had work conflicts (one with a work conflict was excited about the call); one had recently been hospitalized; and one thought she was already a member.
Of the 28 called, 19 responded to the survey, which was 20 percent less than the desired 90 percent success rate. Of the 19 who responded, 10 were still interested in membership, 8 said “yes” to attending The Starting Point, and of that 8, 5 actually attended from these efforts. Beyond receiving the desired information and gleaning some prospects for The Starting Point, the team prayed with and for persons regarding the special circumstances that inhibited their moving forward toward membership. An unstated goal, however, was reached—through the telephone calling, people felt cared for.
95
goals, research methodology, and limitations/delimitations of the project. In addition, the panel’s packet included the “Agreement to Participate” statements and the telephone survey script and results sheet. On the provided “Heart Assessment Questionnaire Evaluation” form, the panel assessed the effectiveness of the questionnaire in generating soul care conversations and revealing soul care needs. Specifically, they considered the usefulness of the instrument in getting the soul care conversation started, enabling peer interaction, setting an atmosphere for transparency and connection, getting at heart issues, and aiding the experience to benefit participants. They rated the aims under each of the categories named above from “1” to “4” with one being lowest. The criteria were as follows: 1 = insufficient, 2 = requires attention, 3 = sufficient, and 4 = exemplary.
Overall, the panel agreed that the questionnaire would achieve its desired end of creating conversation and revealing heart concerns. The “Conversation Starter” category received a 95 percent exemplary rating as 1 panelist deemed the other-centered nature of the questions as sufficient. The “Peer Interaction” category received 93 percent sufficient rating as the struggle with most panelists was the subjective nature of a person’s comfort level in sharing. The “Atmosphere” category received a 100 percent sufficient rating from the 4 out of 5 who responded; absent the assessment of the 1 panelist, the collective sufficient rating was 80 percent. Finally, the “Content” category received a 100 percent sufficient rating. Commenting on whether the questions get at the heart issues of the participants, 1 panelist stated that this result would depend on the participants’ willingness to be transparent while the other panelist stated that it depended on whether an authentic atmosphere had been created. Goal 2 of creating a HAQ as a guide to be used in individual and group soul care conversations successfully met the desired 90 percent sufficient rating with an overall sufficient rating of 92 percent.
General results during implementation. This questionnaire was developed two years before its actual use but became an invaluable guide to bringing to life the soul
96
care lessons and in jumpstarting the soul care conversations in The Starting Point sessions.
Some questions generated tip-of-the tongue answers while others required a little more thought. Because the participants had to answer the questions in session and also have time for sharing, one’s first thought generally had to be and usually was the “right”
thought. Only once did someone feel unable to answer a question. The sharing benefited both the speaker and the listener and created the desired atmosphere of trust and
transparency. One participant privately admitted that this sharing was outside of his comfort zone, but he did it anyway and his responses were rich and often affirmed by the group by verbal response or nodding of the head.
Specific results during implementation. On part 1 of the HAQ, most persons chose between “lukewarm” and “simmering” as their description of their relationship with God. If they chose lukewarm, God’s rating for them would be lukewarm. No one chose
“cold” for any description. However, if they chose “simmering” as their rating for their relationship with God, they tended to choose a lower rating for God’s view of their relationship, which was “lukewarm.” In addition, their ratings of their relationship with God from the perspectives of family or friends would go higher if family or friends were not Christians or Christians living in disobedience. From the supporting Scriptures, I was all too elated to remind these participants that God’s response to their relationship with Him is always one of redemptive love, because His command to love Him is a command to respond to the love He demonstrated toward them in Jesus.
The majority of the responses to part 2 of the HAQ bent toward one’s personal ambitions. A few participants were sold out to God and all things pertaining to Him.
Everyone laughed at question 4, “On what do you spend most of your money,” because nearly everyone’s easy answer was “bills.” A few added “supporting family back home,”
which was not a surprise either as CPBC is an international congregation whose families abroad often live in oppressed conditions. In the last four-week session, multiple people
97
named “achieving balance” as the thing they wanted most. This great desire was a natural lead into God’s response from both the guiding and supporting Scriptures. “Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, and with all of your soul, and with all of your mind,” Jesus stated. I explained that the balance they were seeking required God to have His rightful first place. He is not desiring to fit in or to be on an equal level with anyone or anything in their lives. Instead, the call to be His disciples is a call to deny self and to
“hate” everyone, having no one above Him, not even self. He is to be Lord of all.
On part 3 of the HAQ, “family,” “mom, “grandma,” and “God,” were the most popular responses to the question of, “Who or what has shaped your opinion of yourself.”
The responses to what persons liked most about themselves ranged from courage and resilience to having a calm nature and being a genuine person. Much of those responses tended toward how they faced challenging situations or how well they related to other people. What they liked least about themselves had more to do with their relationship with self and not others. All were positive in their thoughts about what God sees when He looks at them. They were confident that God saw them as His child, whether struggling or striving to be who they thought He wanted them to be.
On part 4 of the HAQ, those who had been examples of God’s love to participants were parents, spouses, and friends, the intimate persons in their lives.
However, participants shared that they had been examples of God’s love to those not always deemed as intimate, such as neighbors and co-workers (they had to give examples of those outside of family for whom they have been examples of God’s love.) Not
surprisingly, participants’ prayers tended to be toward those with whom they were
intimately acquainted, such as brothers, friends, and spouses (the important thing was that they were praying for others). The people group they cared about the most put them outside of their intimate zones as they named caregivers, youth in general and underprivileged youth, and youth in difficult home situations in particular, women, patients, and social organizations.
98
Revisions noted from the implementation. Four revisions were noted for the soul care instruments. First, at the first session, the team quickly realized that they needed to record the participants’ responses on the actual HAQ form the participants were using and following the session to record and evaluate the responses on the leader’s assessment forms. In the next session, leaders would have the needed amount of forms for each participant and themselves. By the last round of The Starting Point I put the participants’
names on the forms prior to the session, which enabled the team to be more present during the sharing. Second, the ratings for the “Love of God” HAQ would be reversed from “high to low” to “low to high.” Third, on the “He Wants It All” HAQ, the response to the question, “What do you spend most of your time doing?” was always “work,” so the question would be changed to read, “Other than work, what do you spend most of your time doing?” In addition, the response to the question, “On what do you spend most of your money,” was always “bills,” so the question would be changed to read, “Other than bills, on what do you spend most of your money?”
Fourth, the “Assessment of Participants” forms required three changes. First, the box where the participant’s name is written needed to be larger and/or typed for ease in identifying who the assessment is about; at present, the name that stands out on the form is the leader’s name. Second, at the bottom of the sheet the instruction to “provide
comments on the back of this sheet” will be changed to read, “Provide additional comments on the back of this sheet,” as comments can be given in the blank boxes to the right, which are designated for “explanation/comments.” Third, the “View of Self” assessment
questions need to be rewritten to match the desired responses from its corresponding HAQ.