5-page paper synthesizing the 3-5 ideas from the readings that made the greatest impact on you, and how those ideas apply to yo

Results of the Project

General Observations

Unfortunately, none of the four churches followed the program 100 percent. The church with the best level of participation adopted about half of the program’s processes. The level to which the church adopted the program’s processes usually depended on the senior pastor’s involvement. As a result of implementing this project, I learned that adopting the program for church growth also required the church to change its culture and attitudes toward first-time guests.

All four of the participating churches had a weak greeter and usher staff. Some first-time guests at the two largest churches (Church A and C) occasionally arrived at the morning worship service more than one hour late and there would be no one to greet them. At first, none of the four churches had greeters available to welcome first-time guests after the first fifteen minutes of the morning worship. At the start of the program, none of the churches provided assistance to first-time guests as they made their way from the parking lot to the church building. Initially, none of the churches used a communication card or had a plan for following up first, second, and third-time guests. At the beginning of the project, none of the churches took attendance; therefore, they had no means by which to know which regular attendees were absent.

The use of nametags for the morning worship service attendees had three unexpected results for me. First, during the “Friendship Time,” there was much more excitement and conversation with both the regular attendees and the first-time guests. No matter how small the church is, an individual usually does not know everyone attending the church. Some people who consider the church their home church may come infrequently, and first, second, and third-time guests have yet to meet most of the people attending the morning worship service. With the nametags, people could easily address one another by name, which resulted in greater participation during that part of the service.

Second, the attendance began to increase even though other parts of the program had not yet been implemented. When a church becomes intentional about church growth, regular attendees become more interested in inviting their friends to attend church. Third, since all regular attendees had pre-printed nametags available, unused tags identified absentees. The church could use this information to help them connect with regular attendees who had been absent.

Results at Church A

Church A participated in the program for five months. For three years their attendance had no-growth in attendance. The church attendance for the same five-month period in 2009 was 170; in 2010 it was 160; and in 2011 it was 166. Their average attendance for the corresponding five-month period from 2009 to 2011 was 165. During 2012, the average was 176 for the five-month period, which indicated an increase of 6 percent over the same five-month period in 2011. If you compare the last month of the project, July, the figures are as follows: July 2009 was 149; July 2010 was 127 and July 2011was 158 for a three-year average July of 145. July 2012 was 178, which indicated an increase of 23 percent. By comparing July of 2011 to July of 2012, one can identify an increase of 13 percent. Figures 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 indicate the attendance trends from 2009 through July 2012.

Figure 4.1. Church A: Attendance 2009.

Figure 4.2. Church A: Attendance 2010.

Figure 4.3. Church A: Attendance 2011.

Figure 4.4. Church A: Attendance 2012

Results at Church B

Church B was in the program for twelve weeks and, of the four churches in the program, had the most difficulty following the program, which created challenges in measure the effort of the project. Church B had experienced a no-growth in attendance for the previous three years. The attendance in 2009 was 37; 40 in 2010; and 38 in 2011. The average attendance for the same twelve week period in 2009 was 41 people; in 2010, the attendance was 43; in 2011, it was 41; and in 2012, it was 36, which indicates a decrease of 17 percent. However, as the 2011 chart indicates, there was a sharp decline with December 2011 averaging 28 people. The information for 2012 indicates an increase in attendance—from 34 people to 43 people, which is a 26 percent increase. The average attendance for the first four weeks of the program was thirty-two people; average attendance for the last four weeks was forty-one people, an increase of 28 percent. Attendance records for the four weeks before the start of the program stood at 39 people while the last four weeks of the program, attendance averaged 41 people, an increase of 5 percent. The February attendance for 2009 to 2011 was 47, while the average May attendance for that same period was 41, which indicates a decrease of 15 percent. The May attendance records for that same period indicate 41; the decrease between the averages of February compared to May was 15 percent. February attendance for 2012 was 39; therefore, the church could expect May’s attendance to be 15 percent less for 2012, which would be 34. The actual attendance was 41, or an increase of 21 percent of expected attendance. This is probably the best figure. Figures 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, and 4.8 indicate the attendance trends from 2009 until May 20, 2012.

Figure 4.5. Church B: Attendance 2009.

Figure 4.6. Church B: Attendance 2010.

Figure 4.7. Church B: Attendance 2011.

Figure 4.8. Church B: Attendance 2012.