Beyond the Ordinary

Email, Websites, and Facebook Pages: Major and Marginal Users

By Cynthia Woolever

In the past decade, religious communities have embraced electronic communication in a big way. As the latest report from Faith Communities Today (FACT) by Scott Thumma indicates—“The use of both websites and email by congregations has more than doubled in the past decade.”

One of the surprising results is congregational use of Facebook (over 40% of the congregations in the study report its use). Given the young age of Facebook—only four years of general public use when the study was conducted in 2000—the adoption rate is stunning. At the same time, use of church websites has leveled off—about three in four congregations maintain a website.

The following figure from the report reveals that many congregations take a “both/and” approach with electronic technology—one in three churches have both a website and a Facebook page.

Thumma points out that few congregational websites are interactive and many are not updated regularly. On the other hand, Facebook pages are more dynamic, easily updated, and interactive for “friends” of the page. However, Facebook features do not suit congregations particularly well for reaching out to potential worshipers as much as a well-designed website does.

Use of email. Email communication is the most adopted technology by congregations. With few exceptions, eight or nine out of every ten congregations report using email to conduct church business, stay in touch with members, or contact visitors. Here are some of the top users (percent of congregations reporting use):

• Unitarian Universalists (100%)
• Baha’is of the United States (100%)
• Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) (98%)
• Episcopal Church (98%)
• Mennonite Church USA (97%)
• Reformed Church in America (96%)
• Churches of Christ (96%)
• Christian Reformed Church (96%)
• Church of the Nazarene (96%)
• Southern Baptist Convention (95%)
• United Methodist Church (93%)
• Roman Catholic Church (91%)
• Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (86%)

Facebook use. In only seven of the 27 participating denominations and faith groups did at least half of congregations indicate they had a Facebook page. Certainly, Facebook puts the congregation and its members and “friends” in the public domain, which means some potential for compromised privacy for individuals. Here are the seven groups where at least half of congregations reported having a Facebook page (percent of congregations reporting use):

• Assemblies of God (69%)
• Unitarian Universalists (66%)
• Church of the Nazarene (60%)
• Southern Baptist Convention (57%)
• Nondenominational (56%)*
• Muslim (52%)*
• Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) (50%)

*Author Scott Thumma notes low response rate for these groups and warrants caution for data interpretation.

About one in four (26%) Presbyterian congregations use Facebook pages to represent their church.

Congregational websites. As the chart above illustrates, some congregations utilize multiple electronic formats for outreach and mission. The average adoption of websites as a tool across groups is 74%. Several denominations and faith groups show adoption rates that exceed this overall average. Here are the 11 groups in which website use exceeds the average (percent of congregations reporting usage):

• Unitarian Universalists (97%)
• Orthodox Christian (92%)
• Episcopal Church (91%)
• Reformed Church in America (92%)
• Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (81%)
• Christian Reformed Church (80%)
• Churches of Christ (80%)
• Nondenominational (78%)*
• Southern Baptist Convention (78%)
• Roman Catholic Church (76%)
• Mennonite Church (76%)

*Author Scott Thumma notes low response rate for these groups and warrants caution for data interpretation.

In comparison, about two in three Presbyterian churches (64%) maintain a church website, slightly below the overall average.

Marginal users. FACT researchers developed a three-point scale of Internet and computer-aided technologies—no or marginal technology use, modest use of technology, and major use. The scale became a tool to rank congregations in each of the participating denominations. Here are the faith groups with the highest percentages of congregations identified as marginal users of electronic technology:

• Conservative Judaism (83%)
• Reform Judaism (78%)
• Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (66%)
• Muslim (65%)*
• Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (59%)
• Roman Catholic Church (58%)

*Author Scott Thumma notes low response rate for these groups and warrants caution for data interpretation.

The project rated less than half of congregations in the remaining 21 groups, including Presbyterians, as marginal users. One in three Presbyterian churches (35%) were identified as marginal users in this research.

Benefits of adopting new technology. Technology is just one tool among many for congregations seeking to build on their strengths. Scott Thumma links the adoption of technology to church innovativeness, distinctiveness, vitality, and numerical growth. Compared to others, more congregations that are technologically savvy are innovative, different from other neighborhood churches, and experience vitality and church growth.

Where does your congregation stand in this picture? Is your church among the early adopters of technological strategies? If your congregation makes use of technology, do church leaders engage in ongoing conversations about how this tool enhances congregational life?

In your church seeking to enter the Facebook/web world, but not sure where to start? Consider resources from:

Congregational Resource Guide

Center for Congregations

Church Tech Review

 

Previous related posts:

Pastors and Technology

Are Pastors Wired

Surfing for God

Surfing for God, part 2

Congregational Websites

How do Congregations Use Email?

 

New Kinds of Presbyterians in New Presbyterian Churches?

By Cynthia Woolever

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) attracts new worshipers to both existing churches and new churches. Are worshipers in new churches pretty much like Presbyterian worshipers who attend other congregations? Or are they different?

We had the chance to survey about 7,500 worshipers who attend new Presbyterian churches, those founded in the past 20 years. These new church worshipers are distinct from other Presbyterians in several ways:

• Worshipers in new PC(USA) churches reflect more racial-ethnic diversity than the typical Presbyterian worshipers. New churches are even more racially diverse than the fastest growing PC(USA) churches.

        

• Worshipers in new PC(USA) churches represent a greater range of birthplaces as well. While large majorities of Presbyterian worshipers were born in the United States, worshipers in new PC(USA) churches were far more likely to have been born in a non-English speaking country (13%).    

• Many worshipers in new PC(USA) churches are second-generation immigrants—both parents were born in another country. In fact, one in five worshipers in new Presbyterian churches report that both parents were born outside the United States.    

 

Why start new Presbyterian churches? One reason is demonstrated in the findings above. New PC(USA) congregations attract worshipers who were not being reached by other long-standing Presbyterian churches.

 

One of Our Greatest Challenges: How to Help People Feel Like They Belong

By Cynthia Woolever

In vital places of worship, people have a strong sense of belonging to the congregation. Yet we found that this aspect of congregational life seemed to diminish between 2001 and 2008. Is that important? We believe it is.

Congregations with a healthy heart touch worshipers’ feelings. When worshipers have a strong sense of belonging to the church, they feel connected and accepted. Finding a place within the family, school, groups of friends, or church is a basic human need. Mental health experts point to the role of belonging in combating depression and loneliness.

The morale of the congregation as a whole rests on the proportion of worshipers who feel a strong sense of connection there. Multiple ties with friends and family in the church foster a greater sense of belonging. People begin to identify personally with the congregation. In contrast, when worshipers feel less attached, they are apt to participate less over time and may eventually drift away entirely.

Unlike worship attendance figures or the number of baptisms, we cannot directly observe a sense of belonging because it is subjective. So, how can we measure it?

Here are the three indicators we used in 2001 and 2008:

The percentage of worshipers who:

• Feel their sense of belonging to this congregation is strong and growing
• Report they are participating in the activities of the congregation more than they did two years ago
• Say most of their closest friends are part of the congregation

As the table shows, all three measures of belonging declined from 2001 to 2008.

These changes show that worshipers today do not identify as strongly with their congregation as they did in 2001. Given these dramatic results, how can we be sure that the findings are not just some fluke?

We look to the small random sample of congregations that participated in our research project back in 2001 and again in 2008. Information from this subgroup of churches helps us examine the nature of change over time in a more specific way.

We found that worshipers’ sense of belonging dropped significantly even in this sample of repeating churches. The findings were also consistent across faith groups—the sense of belonging declined sharply among mainline and conservative Protestants as well as among those attending Catholic parishes.

A strong sense of belonging is linked to high levels of participation, spiritual growth, and outreach. Thus, there is no way to consider the belonging decline as a positive outcome for congregations.

Congregations with many worshipers who strongly identify with the church use intentional strategies to boost those connections. Can your congregation say “yes” to these questions?

1. Do we have an intentional system that helps all new attendees become involved in a group within six weeks?
2. Do we provide the opportunity for all new attendees to develop five to seven new friends in the congregation within the first six months?
3. Do we have an intentional system that matches all new attendees with a role or responsibility within the first six months?
4. Do we have a large number of entry-level places of service?
5. Do we have an openness to beginning the kinds of new ministries each year in which new attendees want to be involved?
6. Do we provide several kinds of spiritual growth opportunities that help new attendees experience a life-transforming connection with God?

For more ideas, download the free resource, Church Effectiveness Nuggets, Volume 7: How to Build Assimilation Bridges for New Members/Attendees (www.TheParishPaper.com).

Taking Care of Basics

What level of attachment do worshipers in your congregation experience? Have you asked them lately? Consider using the U.S. Congregational Life Survey in your congregation. Sense of Belonging is one congregational health dimension included in the worship survey. You can find out how your worshipers feel about the congregation along with their perceptions of spiritual growth.  Learn how.

      

Can Pastors Build Congregational Strength?

By Cynthia Woolever

A change in pastors can result in positive outcomes. We identified ten aspects of vitality in our research on congregations. These ten strengths were measured in our national study of congregations, including those churches and parishes that participated in 2001 and again in 2008. Did these congregations become stronger or more vital over time?   

About half of congregations showed greater strength in church participation. The Participating in the Congregation strength indicator reflects the percentage of worshipers who: attend worship weekly or more often; are involved in one or more small groups (such as Sunday school, prayer or Bible study); hold one or more leadership roles in the congregation; participate in congregational decision making; and give 5% or more of their income to the church.

Those congregations that had a change in the key pastoral leader between 2001 and 2008 were actually more likely to grow stronger in this area than other churches. Two out of three churches (66%) with a different pastor in 2008 had higher scores on church participation when they were re-surveyed in 2008. Unfortunately, less than half (40%) of the congregations with the same key leader in 2008 had higher scores the second time around.  

More than half of the congregations (56%) showed greater strength in focusing on the community. Another area of strength measured in 2001 and 2008 involved congregations’ external focus on their communities. This indicator reflects the percentage of worshipers who: are involved in social service or advocacy groups through the congregation; are involved in social service or advocacy groups outside the congregation; contributed money to a charitable group other than the church; and report that the congregation’s wider community care/advocacy is one of the three most valued aspects of their church.  

The chart above shows that congregations that welcomed an incoming pastor between 2001 and 2008 boosted their strength in focusing on the community even more. Two-thirds (69%) of these congregations had higher scores on this measure in 2008 than in 2001. Again, the story tended to be different for congregations that retained the same pastor between 2001 and 2008. Only 41% of these saw their scores change in the positive direction.    

What about the other dimensions of congregational vitality? Many congregations improved or declined between 2001 and 2008 on the ten strengths we measured in our research. But the patterns across congregations for the other eight strengths were inconsistent. Only church participation and focusing on the community were clearly related to clergy turnover.

Does the pastor get all the credit? No. Many factors support congregational vitality. However, this research shows that a different pastor can potentially reenergize worshipers to become more involved in their congregation and in their community.