Congregational Vitality among Evangelical Churches in Canada

Findings

According to the baseline measures of growing numbers and financial well-being, evangelical churches in our sample tended to be doing pretty well. Nearly half (45.6%) claimed their average weekly attendance had increased over the last year (35.8% no change, 18.6% decreased). Over half (51.7%) of pastors stated that their financial situation was “good” or “excellent,” and only 13.4% said it they were in “some” or “serious” financial difficulty (the remaining 34.9% said their finances were “tight but manageable”). In spite of the economic recession in Canada during the time of our interviews, one-third (35.9%) said that giving had increased as compared to a year ago, while 44.1% said their finances had remained about the same.

Table 1 presents some of the correlates of the congregational vitality scale. For a quick primer on understanding correlations statistically, see the appendix to Reimer (2010). The scale is moderately correlated with denomination and region. Specifically, the Atlantic region is negatively correlated with vitality while BC is positively correlated. In Atlantic Canada, there are many small, old, rural congregations (mostly Baptist). These congregations lack vitality partly because people, particularly young people, are moving to the cities or out West seeking greener economic pastures, leaving these churches with fewer and older participants. Churches in BC are younger – in terms of the year the congregation was founded – than in any other region, especially Atlantic Canada (see Reimer and Wilkinson, 2010). Younger churches tend to be better situated in growing areas, such as cities. However, I want to be clear that there are many vibrant rural evangelical churches in Canada. Rurality is not correlated with congregational vitality. In fact, if church age is controlled,(5) the negative correlation between vitality and the

Atlantic region disappears, as does the positive correlation in BC. In comparison, controlling for rurality has little effect on regional differences. Regional differences in vitality, then, are largely a function of church age.

The MB and PAOC denominations show weak-to-moderate positive correlations with congregational vitality. The MB correlation is related to age of congregation as well, as MB churches tend to be younger and well-located (see Reimer, 2011). The PAOC correlation is not so easily explained. After searching out several demographic possibilities to no avail (since PAOC churches are at least as likely to be rural and old, and have poor, less educated constituencies), I noted that congregations with exuberant worship have greater vitality (or are perceived by pastors to have greater vitality). For example, vitality is positively correlated with spontaneity in worship, raising hands, altar calls, praise bands, drama or dance, etc., as we see in table 3. This is true even among churches that are not PAOC.

Table 1. Demographic and Identity Correlates of Congregational Vitality
 

	Correlation with Congregational vitality scale
Region- Atlantic	-.124**
Region- BC	.103*
Denomination- PAOC	.116*
Denomination- MB	.108*
Demographics- % age 18-29	.248***
Demographics- % college educated	.304***
Demographics- year church was founded	-.154***
Identity- Missional	.368***
Identity- Purpose driven	.336***
Identity- Evangelical	.236***

Source: CECS 2009.
Significance: * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001.

Regarding the demographics of the people in the pew, churches with younger and highly educated attendees show greater vitality. Churches have less vitality, on average, when they have a high percentage of attendees over the age of 65, or a high percentage of attendees with high school education or less. This relationship exists even when rurality, Atlantic region, and age of congregation are controlled. It should not surprise us that the presence of young adults is important to vitality. In fact, the NCLS measures retention of young people separately in their measure of vitality because of its importance (see above). Education is correlated with volunteerism and with what sociologists call “social capital” and “cultural capital” (Bourdieu, 1986). This capital provides resources for investment in social settings, just as economic capital gives the owner resources in the economic sphere. Education provides capital in the form of knowledge, relationships, confidence, etc., that are assets in churches just as in other settings. The fact that vitality is related to education, but not wealth, is a good reminder that the “value” that people add to a church is not primarily economic. Vital churches value and invest in people regardless of their economic capital.

The vitality scale is positively associated with three congregational identities. Pastors were asked, “In terms of overall identity or culture, how well do you feel the following terms describe this congregation? Does this term describe this congregation very, somewhat, or not very well?” Missional, evangelical, and purpose-driven identities are strongly and positively correlated with vitality. Charismatic, fundamentalist, seeker sensitive, cell, liturgical, and emergent church identities are not. Of course, we do not know what these terms mean to the pastors, but it is likely that their understanding is limited. The missional and purpose-driven identifications show the strongest correlations. I suspect this is partly because a church with clear, compelling vision or purpose, and with strong external outreach, has higher vitality, as we shall see below. Also, vitality is correlated with measures of outreach.

Table 2. Vision and Priorities Correlates of Congregational Vitality

	Correlation with Congregational Vitality Scale
Mission shapes priorities/goals of the church	.367***
Strengthening relationships	.356***
Building volunteer leadership	.355***
Providing worship services that appeal to visitors	.317***
Promoting deeper spirituality	.315***
Promoting co-operation between churches and community	.276***
Providing care and counselling services	.195***
Helping members get ahead financially	.185***
Promoting faith development in children/youth	.174***

Source: CECS, 2009.
Significance: * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001.

In table 2, it is no surprise that churches that are mission-driven have higher vitality. CECS respondents were asked if their church had a mission statement. If they did, we asked, “In your view, does this mission or purpose statement shape the priorities and goals of this church at the present time, or not?” We also asked if they set short-term goals, if these goals were measurable, if they set dates for evaluation of goals, and if there were people held accountable for implementing them. Most of these measures were correlated with vitality, but it is noteworthy that having a mission statement is not nearly as important (correlation of .161) for vitality as having a mission statement that shapes the priorities and goals of the church presently (correlation of .367). Setting short- term goals was also important (correlation of .233) for vitality.

Pastors were asked, “As you know, congregations operate according to certain values or priorities, even if they are not explicitly stated. In your view, what are the actual priorities of this church, based on how they function, even if they are different from your priorities?” Table 2 shows the priorities that are positively correlated with vitality. The strongest correlations are with the items “strengthening marriages and family relationships,” “building volunteer leadership,” “providing a worship service that is welcoming and comfortable to non-churched visitors,” and “promoting deeper spirituality through the spiritual disciplines like prayer, fasting, meditating on scripture, etc.” Although “helping members get ahead financially” was the lowest rated of the sixteen priority questions (less than 5% of pastors considered it a very high priority in their church), it nonetheless was correlated with vitality (I am not sure why). Note that the priorities of evangelism, encouraging people to serve in their gifts, and serving the poor or needy are not included here because they are part of the vitality scale itself. Priorities that do not have a significant correlation with vitality include protecting people from the negative influences of the world, promoting the faith development of children and youth (probably because 80% churches consider this a very high priority, so there is little variance in the item), working to preserve traditional morals, providing counseling/care for members, enhancing the beauty of the church building and grounds, preserving ethnic culture/language, and teaching the theological distinctives of our religious tradition.

Table 3. Worship Correlates with Congregational Vitality

	Correlation with Congregational Vitality Scale
Time for laity to share in worship services	.225***
Time spent mingling/socializing	.135**
Raising hands or clapping	.284***
Praise band	.259***
Drama or dance in services	.237***
Spontaneous activity	.211***
Altar call	.195***
Speaking in tongues	.129**
Dialogue between pastors/laity	.107*
Communion	.106*
LCD projector	.092*

Source: CECS, 2009.
Significance: * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001.

Table 3 shows that the vitality scale is correlated with “a time for laity to share testimonies or prayer requests,” and the amount of time spent mingling or socializing during (or after) the main service. In addition, questions related to enthusiastic (and charismatic) worship show positive and significant correlations, as mentioned above. Regression analyses (not shown) show that the most robust items (those that remain significant after controls are added) include the first two items in the table (participation in worship and time mingling), and drama or dance, and raising hands or clapping. Other variables, such as speaking in tongues or spontaneity, become insignificant. Of course, many non-charismatic evangelical churches have drama or dance in their services, and have worshipers clap or raise their hands during worship. This suggests, I think, that exuberant (charismatic) worship is not as important as participatory worship. At minimum, we can conclude that vibrant worship and lay participation in worship are important to vitality.

Table 4. Conflict and Co-operation Correlates with Congregational Vitality

	Correlation with Congregational Vitality Scale
Recent conflict in the church	−.126**
Formal means to handle conflict	.222***
Co-operation with a Christian community organization	.213***
Co-operation with a non-religious community organization	.182***
Co-operation with another evangelical church	.157***
Co-operation with Christian but non-evangelical church	.108*

Source: CECS, 2009.
Significance: * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001.

Most churches face conflict from time to time, and 29% of our sample said yes to the following item: “In the last five years, has this church experienced conflicts that caused a significant number of the active lay participants to leave the church?” While there is a negative correlation with recent, serious conflict (−.126), I expected the correlation to be much stronger. More important than recent conflict, it seems, is the way conflict is handled. Congregations who said they have a “formal procedure for handling conflict within the church” have higher vitality. One can speculate that such formal procedures are healthier for the pastor, who often has to personally mediate conflict when no formal procedures are in place. Recall that the lead pastor answered all the questions on this survey.

Co-operation with nearby organizations is often good for vitality, but not all types of co-operation. Pastors were asked whether or not they had co-operated with certain institutions within the previous year. Co-operation with Christian or non-religious community organizations were both positively correlated with vitality (table 4). Again, these final two items suggest that a focus on community outreach is good for vitality. Co-operation with (what the pastor perceived to be) another evangelical church, or a Protestant or Catholic church that is not evangelical, is moderately and positively correlated with vitality. However, co-operation with a non-Christian congregation (Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc.) is not.

Table 5. Pastoral Support Correlates of Congregational Vitality

	Correlation with Congregational Vitality Scale
Staff/volunteers to help in areas of weakness	.201***
Friends to share personal struggles with	.199***
Number of other pastoral staff	.190***
Expenditure on salaries	−.156***
Expenditures on local outreach	.143**
Expenditure on building and grounds maintenance	−.118*
Expenditure on missions	.113*

Source: CECS, 2009.
Significance: * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001.

If readers accept the idea that healthy leadership is necessary for healthy churches, then pastoral support items should be correlated with congregational vitality. Table 5 looks at the financial and relational support for pastors as correlates of vitality. If a church has staff or volunteers who work in areas where the pastor is weak (not gifted), those churches enjoy higher vitality. Note that the positive effect of “staff/volunteers to help in areas of weakness” remains even if we control for the number of staff at the church. Pastors with close friends tend to be in churches with higher vitality. Having more staff is positively correlated with vitality (.190), but the staff can be volunteer, not paid. In fact, once we control for the number of staff, having paid staff instead of volunteer staff is actually negatively correlated with vitality (−.114, a significant but moderately weak correlation). Since high levels of lay volunteerism is a strong predictor of vitality, it is likely that this does not indicate anything negative about paid staff, but rather the benefits of committed lay volunteers. The conclusion is obvious: healthy pastors are supported pastors, and pastoral health is important for congregational vitality.

Regarding finances, churches that spend a higher percentage of their budget on salaries have less vitality. This does not mean that paying church staff less is good for vitality, but that channelling resources outside the church, toward foreign missions and community outreach, is good for vitality. Churches where the majority of funds stay inside the church, in the form of building maintenance or salaries, have less vitality.

Footnotes:

(5) In this paragraph, I control for different variables by a statistical technique called “partial correlation,” which measures the correlation between two variables once I remove the effect of other variables, or hold those variables constant.