Scarcely a week goes by that I do not get at least one telephone call from a pastor who says, “We’re going to do a congregational survey. Do you have any questionnaires you can send me?”
My standard response is to ask why the pastor wants to do the research. The replies vary:
Because I have heard you recommend it.
I have just come back from a church growth conference, and it sure sounds like a good idea.
Our attendance is way down at the Wednesday service. We need to find out how to get people to come.
We’re having problems in the adult class. I need to identify the causes.
My answer to such requests often brings surprise. Invariably I say, “No, I don’t have any questionnaires to send you.”
My reason is simple: There is no such thing as a standard survey for churches. Some church consultants offer them, but look before you leap.
Once I was in a pastor’s office, and he showed me two inches of computer print-out. “What do I do now?” he asked. He was snowed with research, because no one had bothered to find out the specific information he and his leadership needed. So I told him to use it to hold up his bookshelf-he was relieved to find it had at least some practical value.
Here’s the key point: congregational research should never be undertaken without careful prior analysis. A survey is only one step in strategic planning, and it can’t be taken by itself. Without prior analysis and action-oriented follow-up, surveys are useless.
With those two steps, however, congregational surveys have two distinct benefits:
1. They can take the pulse of the congregation so that activities and programs can be custom-designed to fit that particular local church.
2. They can determine whether or not programs have achieved their goals.
To have real benefit, a congregational survey must meet four conditions.
1. Ownership by Staff and Leaders
One experience stands out so clearly in my mind that it has shaped nearly everything I do in working with churches and Christian organizations.
A church board asked me to help them in congregational analysis. We undertook a survey on key issues, and the congregation was active in searching for solutions. As we got into the process, the whole congregation was freed up to do some creative thinking.
But we forgot one thing. No one bothered to find out what the senior pastor was thinking. He appeared to agree with all that was being done, and the leadership continually sought his counsel. But in reality he never owned the process-and ended up ignoring most of the board’s recommendations.
People will not act unless they have a stake in the action. They must agree that research is necessary and be willing to act on the findings.
It would be a mistake to view pastors as the chief roadblocks. Usually the opposite is true. In another situation, the planning committee of one of the recognized superchurches liked some of the things I had been writing and wanted to do a congregational analysis. Before encouraging them, however, I said we’d better test the water with the lay leadership. The outcome: no interest. Hence no survey.
2. Openness to Change
Even if there is some ownership in the process, no one should undertake research unless there is willingness to change. Unfortunately, this is one of the most difficult criteria to gauge. One major church decided to do a survey of its Sunday evening service. At least half the congregation said it should be dropped. The staff meeting at which this finding was presented was most interesting.
“Drop the Sunday evening service?”
“That’s what the liberal churches do.”
“Never.”
So the service continues, while attendance declines. The research made its point, but it was little more than an irritant until it was filed safely out of sight.
In general, we will tolerate research if it confirms what we already believe, but watch out if it raises a challenge. This is a very human and understandable response. But it leads me to challenge any church leader considering research: “Are you willing to toss all programs in the air and consider all as candidates for change?”
If you can’t say yes to that question and adopt an attitude that says, “Any program will be changed or dropped if it is not accomplishing a purpose,” then a red light for a congregational survey stays on.
3. A Participative Management Style
Howard Snyder has written that in practice the American church is much more of an institution than it is a living body. Some degree of institutionalization is necessary in any human enterprise, but institutionalization can lead to a leadership style in which programs are determined from the top and imposed on a passive congregation. The ramifications of such a style are many, but it is a particular problem when it comes to implementing research findings.
A survey seeks the voice of those most affected by the church program, the people who could really help in implementation. Yet rarely are they given a chance. Rather, a limited number of leaders try to do it all.
Such a leadership style usually spells disaster for bringing about change in local churches. All the people involved in a program should be challenged to be a part of the solution.
In one church I surveyed, a strong voice emerged advocating increased teaching help to aid parents as they raised their children. As a challenge, the pastor said, “This is what we found. Now who will pitch in on a task force to seek the Lord for solutions?” Much to his surprise, fifteen couples emerged who had not been active previously, and their suggestions proved to be highly creative and practical.
4. Clear and Workable Program Goals
Surveys are impossible to design unless clear and workable goals are developed first.
One church board asked me to design a survey to measure the effectiveness of their Sunday service. My response: “How would you know if it is effective?”
Silence. Finally somebody said, “You know, I never thought about that before.”
I faced the same situation with a Sunday school class. I was asked to help assess the effectiveness of the teaching. I asked the teacher, “What do you expect people to learn and do differently as a result of this series?” He was working verse-by-verse through the Book of Joshua, and all he could say was he hoped they would be blessed and learn how Joshua was a man of God. Sorry, no survey. What questions could we possibly ask if there were no goals?
This is one of the most serious challenges facing today’s leadership. It is essential to have a clear-cut model of spiritual growth before we can ever take the pulse of a congregation. We need a master plan that spells out what a mature Christian learns and does, based on careful scriptural interpretation. When it is absent, we can get away with about anything from the classroom or pulpit.
What are the ways of thinking and behaving you’re trying to build into your people as they grow to maturity? If you can identify at least some of these, some exciting survey work can document where you are right now. Then programs can be undertaken to move people closer to where you want them to be.
Here’s an example: A congregational survey shows that only ten percent of the people know their spiritual gift(s). Leadership agrees that this is far short of what is wanted and sets these goals for an adult class: At the end of six months, each person (1) will be able to define clearly what a spiritual gift is, (2) will have identified his/her own gift(s), and (3) will have used it in at least one ministry situation. Now we are getting down to cases and using research as it ought to be used.
Some Guidelines as You start
If you are making at least some progress along the lines discussed above, don’t hesitate to get your feet wet in congregational research. Here are a few practical suggestions to help you get started:
1. Keep your surveys short and confined to the most important information. Twenty questions is a reasonable maximum. Don’t get overwhelmed with data. Remember that the goal of this information is to help in planning, not to obscure it with figures.
2. Include only those items of information that pass this test: “If we only knew this, it would really make a difference in what we do.” The usual temptation is to include “interesting” but not managerially useful information. The number of times members view Christian television might interest a few, but it would be of marginal value to church leadership.
3. Avoid canned research instruments. No one survey instrument is right for you, any more than one size shoe is right for all adults. It depends upon your needs and situation. Beware of research suppliers who argue to the contrary. By the way, those who are interested in designing their own research may want to refer to a manual I wrote for the average person interested in getting started (How Can I Get Them to Listen? available from Management Development Associates, 1403 N. Main, Suite 207, Wheaton, IL 60187).
4. Recognize that research is no panacea. It can provide useful insights, but the ultimate action will necessitate some skillful use of experience and creative intuition, to say nothing of clear-cut reliance on leadership of the Spirit. Research is only the information function of strategic planning.
When you do take the plunge, be prepared for some cold water. It can be exhilarating in the sense of creative discovery, but it can also be paralyzing for those who have never done it before. This initial paralysis, however, soon gives way to the unleashing of creativity that can make the whole process worthwhile.
James F. Engel is senior vice president of Management Development Associates, Wheaton, Illinois.
Copyright © 1984 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.
