Check out my review of Sociologist Bradley Wright’s Book, “Christians Are Hate-Filled Hypocrites… and Other Lies You’ve Been Told” at InternetMonk.com.
Book Review: Christians Are Hate-Filled Hypocrites… and Other Lies You’ve Been Told
Jul 26, 2010What is an “average” sized church?
Jul 18, 2009By Michael Bell – Previously published on InternetMonk.com
You may have heard people say that the “average” sized church in the U.S. or Canada is about 75 people. You also may have heard someone say that the “average” sized church in North America is about 185 people. Who is right? It all depends how you define “average”.
Statisticians use three terms when describing populations. “Mean”, “Median”, and a third term that won’t really enter our discussion today called “Mode”.
I have borrowed, and expanded upon, an analogy from the The National Congregations Study that was released last month, to help us understand the differences in these terms and why they are important to our understanding of churches in North America. What you will read here is U.S. data, but the numbers are very similar for the Canadian situation as well.
Imagine you are looking down a very, very long street, and all the churches of U.S. are lined up along the left side of the street from smallest to largest. In behind each church are all their Sunday morning attenders.
If you counted the grand total of everyone standing behind each church and then divided this number by the total number of churches that you see on this very long street, you would come up with a “mean” or “average” size of 184. “Mean” is usually what we mean of when we think of “average”. But this number of 184 is a very misleading number.
Lets say you start walking down the street, passing the churches with 5 people on a Sunday morning, 10 people, 15 people, 20 people. You continue walking until you have passed half of all the churches in America. Half of the churches in the U.S. are now behind you, half are still in front. The “average” church that you are standing in front of is called the “median” church. You look to see how many people are lined up behind it, and you see 75 people. That is right, half the churches in the United States have less than 75 people.
The average or “mean” church at 184 is 2.45 times the size of the average median church at 75. Why is this so? If you continue walking, you will get a better understanding of how skewed church numbers are within the United States.
So, you continue walking, past the churches of 80, 90, 100, 110. You walk until you have passed 90% of all the churches. You look to your left and you see 350 people lined up behind this church. Much to your surprise, although you have passed 90% of all the churches, over half of the churchgoers are still in front of you! This is why the “mean” is so much higher than the “median”. While most of the churches in the United States are small, most of the attenders go to large churches.
Read the rest of this entry »
It’s a lot easier to be Non-Religious
Jun 19, 2009I previously published this post on Internet Monk
I have received a lot of interest and feedback on my last two posts on Internet Monk, concerning how and when people switch between their childhood religion and their current faith. For those who have not had the opportunity to read them, you can read them here and here.
The question that I have been asked the most is about historical trends in the data. For example, from the graph that I provided you can see that about 50% of adults who were raised non-religious, subsequently joined a faith group. How has this changed over time? (For the purposes of this posting I am using the word “religious” in the way it has been used historically, that is, someone is religious if they are an adherent to a particular faith tradition.)
Bradley Wright, who teaches Sociology of Religion at the University of Connecticut, was kind enough to pass on a source of data where this was analyzed:
Fischer and Hout, in their recent book “Century of Difference” (2006) used General Social Survey data to analyze historical data about religion and childhood. For the most part, the graphs that they provide match up quite nicely with the chart that I provided. Historically, the outflows from Evangelical and Mainline Protestant church have been pretty constant over the last 100 years. Evangelicals have done a better job at retaining member than Mainline Protestants, and so over time have fared better. Typically about 75% of Evangelical 16 year olds will continue their Evangelical affiliation into adulthood. 25% will switch out, a number that is quite similar to what is seen in my chart. Catholics retention is not as strong as it used to be, but according to the Fischer and Hout data is now similar to that of Evangelicals.

The most striking change was for the non-religious. If you were raised non-religious between 1920 and about 1950 then you were more than 70% likely to join a faith group after the age of 16. This started changing rapidly in the 1960s, and by the time Fischer and Hout collected their data and published their book in 2002, the rate that at which non-religious became religious was down to 25%.
My chart, by nature of it looking at all adults regardless of age, had an averaging effect of younger adults and older adults, so my percentage of outflows from the non-religious was quite a bit higher than the 25% currently being reported by Fischer and Hout. What this means that if we were to somehow update my chart, and look at flows that were happening today, Protestant and Catholic outflows would be very similar to what you see on the chart, but outflows from the non-religious would only be about half as wide as are drawn on the chart.
These numbers should not surprise us. As my wife said to me last night, there is so much more support for the non-religious in school, media, and society in general than there was 50 years ago. It is not surprising that they are now retaining 75% of their adherents. I should also point out the trend in the non-religious retaining their adherents has not slowed. It may already be significantly higher than the 75%.
I hate being a bearer of bad news. I really do. People who know me, know that I am a pretty optimistic kind of guy. I don’t like to see that the non-religious are gaining ground. I have a lot of neighbors and co-workers who are not religious. Most of them do not see any need whatsoever for religion, or faith, or whatever you might want to call it. This is certainly a wake up call that tells me how important it is for me to live a Christ like life, to at least show them, if not tell them, that Jesus Christ is something worth considering.
As usual your thoughts and comments are welcome.
How do we stop the Hemorrhaging? A follow up to the Pew Forum Data
May 18, 2009By Michael Bell
I recently published this post at InternetMonk.com
In my previous post at Internet Monk, I looked at two surveys conducted by The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life: Faith in Flux: Changes in Religious Affiliation in the U.S. that was released a few weeks ago, and which was a followup to their U.S. Religious Landscape Survey that they released last year.
By working with the numbers of the surveys I was able to come up with a chart that showed how Americans have been changing from their childhood faith to their current faith. One of the key findings was that Christian denominations are losing adherents though the back door so to speak than they are gaining new believers through the front door. If you haven’t had a chance to check it out, please check out the original post, as it will help you understand some of the ideas behind this post, as well us understand the magnitude of the changes.
Today I wanted to focus on the “when” and the “why” this hemorrhaging was occurring, but as I have been pondering the data, the “when” seemed to really stand out as being important. I was reminded of my preaching classes back in seminary, when our professor, Dr. Peter Ralph, would constantly remind us to find the “big idea” that needed to be communicated from the biblical text. I think the same holds true when looking at survey data. Here is the “big idea” that jumped out at me when going through the Flux survey data and reports:
Most religious life decisions, even among those who have been open to change, has been set by age 23.
Read the rest of this entry »
How the recession may fuel church growth
Apr 6, 2009By Michael Bell
The following post was originally published at InternetMonk.com.
Michael Spencer recently republished an article which looked at the problems that wealth creates for discipleship. He writes:
Have you ever thought about this? We are living in the most fabulously wealthy, excessively entertained and unimaginably prosperous nation in the history of the world. We have a standard of living, and a level of comfort, that much of the rest of the world cannot imagine…
The Jesus of the Gospel proclaims the promises of prosperity, real estate and parking places to be empty. If we will listen. He’s just as discomforting now as ever, unless we render him the harmless servant of our desires.
Rather than telling us about your best life now, Jesus talks over and over about persecution, sacrifice, voluntary poverty and laying down the images and symbols of success for the lasting worth and influence of the Kingdom of Jesus.
In the story of the rich young ruler, Matthew 19:21-24, Jesus makes it clear that it is very difficult for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. It is so very true. When people are content in their present circumstances it is very difficult for them to hear the challenges of the gospel, and the demands of the Kingdom of God. This goes for both people with and without faith in God. For those with faith, it is a question of discipleship. For those without faith it is a question of evangelism.
Recession changes all that.
Read the rest of this entry »
The Coming Evangelical Collapse – A Statistical Support – Part 2.
Mar 17, 2009
By Michael Bell
As I was time limited when taking my first statistical look at “The Coming Evangelical Collapse“, I wanted to follow up with a few more observations about some of Michael Spencer’s statements:
1. Denominations will shrink, even vanish.
Much to my surprise, the decline in evangelicals in the U.S. has already begun. The Association of Religious Data Archives (ARDA) lets you generate maps to visibly see the changes. The maps shown here show the difference in Evangelicals between 1990 and 2000. Note how the colors have lightened over 10 years, particularly in the south-east.


You can visit the ARDA site to create your own maps on a national, regional, and/or denominational level.
When we look at the age composition of churches in the data from the American Religious Identity Survey (ARIS), it is clear that those who will be impacted the most will be those denominations who call themselves Baptist. The most significant growth is coming from those Christians who say they have no denominational affiliation. Two thirds of these are under the age of fifty. It is clear from the data that there is and will be a move away from denominational identification.
2. Fewer and fewer evangelical churches will survive and thrive.
Read the rest of this entry »
A tale of two Churches and Pastors
Jan 4, 2009About seven years ago, two of my friends became Pastors of two different churches in our area. Both churches were struggling, having less than 100 people.
One church was made up of seniors, a group of people who some time ago had resisted change, and so had lost their subsequent generations to other churches. The other church had a cross section of families, but was struggling to make a go of it in rented facilities in a relatively small town.
In hindsight, both were uniquely and appropriately gifted, to lead their churches into significant growth.
In the case of the seniors’ church. The church had come to recognize that in order to not be closing the doors in ten years that there had to be some change. Change however would come at a snail’s pace. And the pastor had to have the patience of Job in order to keep persevering with small incremental changes that the seniors could tolerate. He had a true “Pastor’s heart” and spent much time visiting with people and caring for them. The church came to love their Pastor, and the church grew, largely from other churches whose seniors had become disenfranchised and were looking for a place to belong. The Pastor told me that his church had done a very good job of welcoming the new people, going so far as to change the language that was spoken in the seniors group, so that the newcomers would feel more welcome. The church is now twice as large as it was, still mainly seniors, but with more of a hope of a future.
In the other church, the new Pastor was quite a different sort. He was a visionary guy, with all kinds of ideas of how they could present and grow the church. His route was to go very contemporary, while not neglecting the importance of things like baptism and communion. Being contemporary, to him did not mean watering down the word, but presenting it in ways that were understandable and communicated to their target audience. They also put a strong emphasis on small groups, which they called “small church”, knowing that this was one of the best ways to see people discipled and grow. The thing that impressed me the most when visiting, was that they scheduled baptisms for every month, trusting that God would be moving in such a way, that people would want to follow Christ in Baptism. This church has now doubled three times in the seven years that he has been there. Half of the growth has been new convert growth.
What strikes me about both situations is this. Both models work. What is needed is the right Pastor for the right church. I would venture to say that if each of these Pastors had been called to the opposite church, that both of the churches would still be struggling along, if not closed.
One thing that the denomination of my previous church does, is require any church that is calling a new senior Pastor to do a extensive church and community analysis. This is done to help clarify and set their mission, vision, and values. Each potential Pastor undergoes corresponding testing. The church then is presented with a list of Pastors who are appropriate for their situation. The church can recommend that certain names be added, but these potential candidates also have to go through a vetting at the district level. The reason for this of course is to get the right Pastor for the right church, and avoid the sort of church blowups and meltdowns that we here about all too frequently.
I have received permission from the denomination to link to their free resources for those who would like to find out more about the process.
Distractions from the Gospel – Part 3: Church Contentment
Dec 11, 2008By Michael Bell
Here is the Intro, Part 1, and Part 2.
Distractions from the Gospel – Part 3: Church Contentment
A few years ago I helped administer a survey of the members and adherents of the church that we were attending. One thing that we were able to determine from the survey was that by and large people were quite happy with ministries of the church, and weren’t looking to make and significant changes. When we shared these results with the District Superintendent (think Bishop), he cautioned us. “Let me be prophetic here”, he said, “Churches which are largely content with the way things are, and are not open to change, tend to stagnate, plateau, and even die.” Indeed he was rather prophetic, and within three years the church had closed its doors.
Read the rest of this entry »
Distractions from the Gospel – Part 2: Politics and The Culture War
Nov 24, 2008By Michael Bell
Part 1: Busyness
Part 2: Politics and the Culture War
Over the last several weeks I have been thinking about things that distract us from the Gospel. The issue of Politics and the Culture War has to be one of the most significant. To state the issue briefly, Evangelical Christians in the United States have been very concerned with trying to determine who is going to be the political party in power. This is as result of two things, the Republican Party co-opting the religious right by preying on their fears of a homosexual focused, or pro-choice agenda coming from the Democratic Party, along with Evangelical Christians having general concerns about these things and so looking to support a party that shares their concerns.
As a result, Christians have put a lot of effort into pro-life agendas. What Christians may fail to realize is that other than education, there are at least three things that will lower the abortion rate:
- Legislation – When abortions became legal the rate went way up. Reintroducing legislation is part of the Republican/Evangelical agenda.
- Improving economic conditions – A one percent drop in the unemployment rate roughly translates into an six percent drop in the number of abortions. (I determined this by charting US Abortion ratios against Unemployment statistics from the period of 1982 to 2004 and then displaying as a scatter graph with a best fit line.) This is the Democratic way forward as proposed by Obama and Tony Campolo.
- Transforming lives through the power of the Gospel. What I find interesting is that I don’t find Christians talking a lot about this item. If we believe in the power of God to transform lives then wouldn’t we expect the abortion rate to go down as people made genuine commitments to follow Christ?
Now I realize that we could have a discussion about abortion rates between Christians and non-Christians and reasons for the similarities or differences, but I don’t want to go here with this post. All I want to point out is that we have been so concerned with Politics and the Culture War that we have lost our focus on Christ. Jesus did not come to elect political parties, Jesus came to transform lives.
Up in Canada, the political scene is quite different. Politicians are extremely private about their faith. Up until 2004 Evangelical Christians were pretty much split between two Political parties, the Conservations (48%) and the Liberals (42%). In the 2006 election, their was a swing by Canadians in general towards the Conservative party, reinforced by a strong move in the Evangelical community. However, as our Evangelical community is much smaller percentage wise than in the United States, and because Canadian Evangelicals tend to be on the left of American Evangelicals, we have not seen the culture war up here near to the extent that you have in the United States. Instead Canadian Churches have been able to focus on other things, among them church planting and evangelism.
What has been the result? As I have pointed out in previous posts, while the American Evangelical church has been declining, the Canadian Evangelical Church has shown significant growth over the past twenty years. There are certainly other factors, but I would propose that not being distracted as much by Politics and the Culture War has been a major reason leading to the relative growth of Evangelicals in Canada.
Read the rest of this entry »
The Decline of American Evangelicals
Nov 20, 2008By Michael Bell
I must admit I am quite embarrassed. I had done a couple of studies looking at the growth or decline in Evangelicals in North America. In one, I had great numbers showing the growth of Evangelicals in Canada from 1980-2000. In another I showed the growth of the Christian and Missionary Alliance in the U.S and talked about a great tool for measuring numerical denominational growth.
I think it was the strong performance of the Evangelicals in Canada that made me discount many of the recent anecdotal stories of people leaving the church. So I blogged on that assumption, trying to put a positive spin on situation saying that people were replacing the leavers just as fast as they were leaving, and that the situation was not as bad as people were making out. To reinforce my thinking in the subject, no one was challenging me with any real statistical data. So I continued on repeating my views all over the blogosphere.
Today I thought I should take another look at the tool that I had mentioned previously. This time instead of looking at individual denominations, I looked at Evangelical Protestants as whole. I was quite shocked by what I saw. When I compared Evangelical Protestants in 1990 with Evangelical Protestants in 2000, I saw quite a significant decline. The differences, especially in the South East are quite stunning. The legend at the right shows that as a color lightens, the number of evangelicals in a region goes down. As you can see there is a significant lightening across a broad section of the country.
In my next blog post I will try to look a little bit more at what this means, and how this trend might be able to be reversed. A question for our readers: What do you think has been causing this decline? I will respond to your comments on the weekend.
Posted by Eclectic Christian 


