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 at Church C

Church C participated in the project for seven months. Of the four churches in the project, Church C followed the program most consistently. However, Church C had one major barrier to church growth—limited parking space. Church C had additional land to expand their parking, but this was not done during the project phase. The church had no-growth in attendance for the seven-month period in 2009 (148) and 2010 (149) and then declined in 2011 (134). Based on this trend, the projected attendance in 2012 for the same period would have been 119. However, it appears the project gave some impetus to the church attendance, producing an average attendance for the same seven-month period in 2012 of 149. This indicates an 11 percent increase over 2011 attendance and a 25 percent increase over where the trend was leading for 2012. Figures 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, and 4.12 indicate the attendance trends from 2009 through October 2012.

Figure 4.9. Church C: Attendance 2009.

Figure 4.10. Church C: Attendance 2010.

Figure 4.11. Church C: Attendance 2011.

Figure 4.12. Church C: Attendance 2012.

Results at Church D

In August 2012, I became the interim pastor of Church D. Because I was still working on this project in Springfield, Missouri, I had to direct the project from a distance. The church participated in the project for twelve weeks. Due to a lack of historical data, the project information only reflects the current statistics. This made the project more difficult to analyze because of the shorter period of time especially if you try to compare it to the other churches. The average attendance for the month prior to beginning the project (July 2012) was 28. Chris Carrigan, my associate, started the program in August 2012. During the months of August and part of September, the church had guest speakers.

The church quickly responded to the program with the following average attendances: August 2012 was 31; September 2012 was 42; and October 2012 (three weeks) was 52. Church D experienced a growth of 86 percent between July to October, 2012. Figure 4.13 indicates the attendance trends from July to October 2012.

Figure 4.13. Church D: Attendance July-October 2012.

Summary of Results

This project targeted churches under 200 people in attendance because, generally speaking, churches with over 200 in attendance have already figured out a way to grow. Furthermore, this project focused on plateaued or declining churches in an attempt to avert them from becoming part of the 3,000 to 4,000 churches in America that close their doors each year.⁰ The Assemblies of God averaged 239 churches closing annually for the past ten years (2002-2011) for a total of 2,390 churches closed.⁰ The Assemblies of God has about 6,000 churches with an attendance of under 200 that are plateaued or declining in attendance.⁰ However, each of those churches, given the opportunity, could begin to grow.

God designed the church to grow because growth is an aspect of the imago Dei. Christ promises to build His church. Therefore, it is incomprehensible that only some churches can grow. However, church growth is never accidental, but requires careful planning and skillful and diligent execution. This project provides a proven plan to help churches begin their growth cycle.

In order for a church to become a high assimilation church with a 74 percent chance that a first-time guest will become a second-time attender usually requires a cultural and attitude adjustment regarding first-time guests, which can be both painful and time-consuming. Generally speaking, it takes two to three years for a church to become a high assimilation church.

This project focused mainly on growth in attendance without changing existing programs. However, financial growth is generally a product of attendance growth, especially when accompanied by Christ’s teaching about money. I noticed that as the individual churches began to grow, they also wanted to look at other areas in the church that needed to change in order to continue the growth—a healthy byproduct of this project.

As a result of implementing the project, each of the four churches experienced growth. Over a 25-week period of time, Church A saw a 6 percent increase in attendance. Church B, which struggled to implement the program, experienced a 21 percent growth in 15 weeks. Church C, which had the necessary staff to implement the program, enjoyed an increase of 11 percent in 31weeks. Although Church D only participated in the program for 12 weeks, it realized a growth of 86 percent. When annualizing the growth at each church, one must consider that the growth for an entire year would reflect even greater growth than the results evidences in this project. I measured the churches’ growth in a number of difference ways and reported the one that I thought well represented the individual church’s growth. I served as a consultant for Churches A, B and C, whereas in church D I served as pastor, but for a very short period of time.

Although each participating church demonstrated growth, the rate of growth varied. Each church brought a unique set of circumstances, backgrounds, and hindrances to the table. For instance, Church A dealt with the loss of both the youth pastor and music pastor during the year of the project. The pastor of Church B worked full-time outside the church and a Hispanic ministry, led by another pastor, met in his facility. The Hispanic ministry was more than twice as large as the regular congregation of Church B. However, because of internal conflicts, the Hispanic ministry disassociated itself from Church B after a short time. The sanctuary at Church C seats 150 people and attendance averages at their maximum capacity, but they only have parking for about twenty vehicles. In addition, Church C lacked educational facilities. Church D experienced a pastoral change mid-year and their attendance plummeted rapidly beginning in 2012. Structurally, Church D had become a highly dysfunctional church. Despite the challenges the churches faced, each church grew as a result of implementing the principles set forth in the project. A perfect church does not exist because every church has baggage; nevertheless, when a church desires to grow by implementing biblical principles, God will enable them to reach their goals.

The results of the project indicate that creating a plan to intentionally reach out to regular attendees and follow up with first, second, and third-time guests, truly reaps growth in a church. Unsaved people long to connect in meaningful ways to people who genuinely care. Consequently, as a church reaches out to guests and regular attendees in a loving and personal manner, the church can experience numerical growth.