Attracting newcomers
The National Church Life Survey has released some data on the number of newcomers as a part of church services, based on the 2001 NCLS . In an average church, 9.6% of attenders are newcomers without a church background. However, these figures might be increased by particular activities in which the church is engaged. The top five missional activities are
- Congregation is a church plant - 16.5%
- Mission focus on an interest group (eg bikers, artists, divorcees) - 15.0%
- Church services are held in a school, warehouse, community centre, theatre or shopfront - 12.3%
- Other new congregations [ie not a church plant] - 11.9%
- A group or course for new Christians - 11.7%
Of those characteristics listed, those with a below average proportion of newcomers are:
- Mission focus on a life cycle group - 9.4%
- Contact new residents - 9.3%
- Religious education classes - 9.5%
- Secondary school - 9.2% [in context providing a secondary school]
- Infants/primary school - 8.6% [ditto]
- Animal welfare/environmental activities - 8.4%
- Political/social justice activities - 9.0%
- Accommodation - 9.3%
- Aged care services - 9.1%
Obviously it is difficult to discern real answers here as many congregations would fall into more than one of these categories. Similarly, some of those categories are likely to be pretty small such as the schools categories where Catholic churches were not included in the survey.
However, of the first category, these seem to fit pretty well with some of the ideas and projects coming out of the emerging church “scene”, with the possible exception of the course for new christians which seems to be referring to Alpha type activities. I may be wrong, but I am not aware of too many emerging church people involved in this type of evangelism.
From the NCLS newsletter.
December 21st, 2004 at 1:01 pm
Phil,
If you have someone in your church who knows how to compare proportions then it is well worthwhile comparing your church’s results with the overall results.
You can even ask for denominational results as well.
you get to know both your Church’s strengths and weaknesses.
It enables you to plan your sermon guide a bit better
December 23rd, 2004 at 2:29 pm
Thanks for the heads up on the stats Phil-its always interesting to know whats going on in the wider church body.
What you said about not many ‘emerging’ churches being into doing Alpha type activities. I have sensed this too-and I wonder why that is?
I’m not a massive fan of trying to explain Christianity in a course-I believe its something explained as you live out your life. But having said that i do think people do need to provived with an oppurtunity to ‘hear and respond’, to commit to following Jesus.
Thats the value in those kind of courses I reckon. Any other thoughts?
December 23rd, 2004 at 2:30 pm
Guys, this was actually one of my posts…
December 23rd, 2004 at 2:33 pm
Oops, sorry Dan!
December 23rd, 2004 at 5:16 pm
double oops.
however the message remaains the same
December 23rd, 2004 at 6:35 pm
It is ok guys. I am happy to take credit for Dan’s posts. It is just that she is not happy to take credit (or blame) for my posts
December 30th, 2004 at 12:55 pm
Dan, I’m not sure if I understand how 9.5 percent is *that* much worse than 9.6 percent. Indeed, about half of the list of “below average” are just below by a couple of 10ths of a percent, hardly much when you are talking about some churches with perhaps 100 people.
I think it’s awful hard to break apart things churches are doing and compare what is working and what is not by these types of lists. For instance, in a community with a large population of elderly, perhaps an age-group approach would draw greater numbers of such people. But in a community of younger people with several children, a nursery ministry on Friday nights might be a greater draw.
This seems like part of that endless need to quantify that kills the spirit of so many churches.
December 30th, 2004 at 5:06 pm
I agree Bryan, very difficult to analyse these figures. The statistician in me begins to ask all sorts of questions about the robustness of the survey and all of the different variables.
However, if we could get some reliable information about what expressions are more likely to assist our mission, then I think this would be valuable. I don’t know whether we can, and my experience is that too often it becomes a join the dots approach to church programming.
I guess that I will leave it at the statement - to the extent that it is useful, I found this interesting.