Church Growth Research Graph and Statistics

Anthony Darey

Argosy University

Identify the goal, population, and type of study
The goal of this study is to determine what constitutes healthy growth or failure in a church. Of the 2180000000 churches around the world 1103 were used in this particular study which amounts to 0.000050596330275229354 % of the total available pool which included all faiths. These churches were of different denominations. This is a cross sectional analysis of how different churches grow or fail. For this study churches were selected from a previous study that was conducted from other research. These churches that were included in the study included different denominations not just focusing on one in particular, however all were considered christian based.
Who conducted the study? Is there bias here?
This study was conducted by Dr. Richard J. Krejcir an educator of inductive Bible principles. He has been teaching at camps, conferences and churches all over the world since 1978. Some of the principals that he believes should always be followed are : A caring, effective love relationship with Jesus Christ as LORD. A lifestyle dedicated to obeying God's Will. Daily devotional times, prayer, and studying of God's Word. A joyful love and willingness to serve our Lord, even through personal sacrifice. A witness for Christ without hypocrisy. A firm desire to be God's child through trust and obedience. A working faith in God's promises for all daily needs and in all situations.

In this article no bias could be ascertained due to the cross section of various churches and denominations included in the study , also because Dr. Krejcir is familiar with a variety of denominations it is my contention that no bias could be observed in the presentation of the facts.
Is there bias in the sample used in the study?
There is no bias in the sample used because the study was not focused on one particular denomination, but included different sects and beliefs. However this is only a small sample not a world sample due to the fact that a larger sample would not be practical, nor would it be possible to maintain the constantly fluctuating changes within so many churches on such a grand scale.
Are there any problems in defining or measuring the variables of interest in the study?
In this study when a larger poll , reports and inventories were used for comparison there was no significant statistical variance. Also there were problems in defining or measuring the variables of interest in this study because the article does not provide exact numbers as to how many parishioners any given church had converted or how many simply changed churches. The average growth in the most successful churches was only 5-10% but this was only due to patrons coming from other churches. American churches have seen a growth rate of about 40% since the early 1900’s.
Are there any confounding variables present in the study?
The confounding variable in this analysis are the population of the churches included in the study in relation to how many converts that are new v. how many people have just changed churches. Let C = % of Converts and M = % of Migrated to = X as the variable which would show the actual number of new members and converts.( C - M = X ). To determine the exact ratio of C and M, factors (number of converts and number of migrants ) that are needed are not provided in this article therefore, this equation can not be solved based on the information given.
Are the results presented fairly?
The results for this study have been presented based only on the information available ( See Fig 1 - 6 ). For this study statistical information that was derived from following these churches over the 15 year period were compiled and presented as the facts dictated. No other factors were included in determining the outcome of the results.
Is the study’s conclusion reasonable? Does it make sense?
The question most asked is “ Has the Church as a whole grown because of the church growth movement?” Both no and yes would be correct. Churches that are not bound in turmoil and conflict seem to do better than their smaller counterpart. This is in addition to the practice of the 44 rules of church growth principles which encompass a way of life and culture. It should also be noted that in order for any organization to grow and prosper, it is imperative that it has a strong leader or in this case pastor. Without strong leadership and the proper guidance no institution can be expected to succeed. So for this study the results do make sense as the facts represent.

Do the results make practical significance?
To say that the results make practical significance would make me appear bias in my own opinion. This has been an indepth study of a very small pool and based on this information alone it is not possible to say what significance this study would have as a whole. To implement a similar study on a larger scale, although impractical but feasible in doing so, a clearer perception could be gained to determine what factors a needed to have successful growth in a church. This study although complete in its findings, is not done on a large enough scale to say what the proper course of action is needed to make a church successful.

Citation Source :
Krejcir, R. J. (2006). Church Growth Research Graphs and Statistics. Retrieved July 09, 2016, from http://www.churchleadership.org/apps/articles/default.asp?articleid=42348

Figures/Charts

From 1992 to 1995
These Churches were marked with solid Bible teaching and treated each other and outsiders with good hospitality:
Churches that practiced 80% to 100% of the 44 grew 19.4%
Church that practiced 60% to 79% of the 44 grew 11.6%
Church that practiced 30% to 59% of the 44 grew 5.4%
These Churches were marked with gossip and conflict and poor Bible teaching:
Churches that practiced 10% to 29% of the 44 decreased 3.2%
Churches that practiced less than 10% of the 44 decreased 18.5%

From 1996 to 1999
These Churches were marked with solid Bible teaching and treated each other and outsiders with good hospitality:
Churches that practiced 80% to 100% of the 44 grew 20.6%
Church that practiced 60% to 79% of the 44 grew 12.4%
Churches that practiced 30% to 59% of the 44 grew 6.9%
These Churches were marked with gossip and conflict and poor Bible teaching:
Churches that practiced 10% to 29% of the 44 decreased 1.2%
Churches that practiced less than 10% of the 44 decreased 21.8%

From 2000 to 2003
These Churches were marked with solid Bible teaching and treated each other and outsiders with good hospitality:
Churches that practiced 80% to 100% of the 44 grew 17.8%
Churches that practiced 60% to 79% of the 44 grew 9.6%
Churches that practiced 30% to 59% of the 44 grew 4.5%
These Churches were marked with gossip and conflict and poor Bible teaching:
Churches that practiced 10% to 29% of the 44 decreased 0.8%
Churches that practiced less than 10% of the 44 decreased 24.1%

From 2004 to 2006
These Churches were marked with solid Bible teaching and treated each other and outsiders with good hospitality:
Churches that practiced 80% to 100% of the 44 grew 18.8%
Churches that practiced 60% to 79% of the 44 grew 10.2%
Churches that practiced 30% to 59% of the 44 grew 3.8%
These Churches were marked with gossip and conflict and poor Bible teaching:
Churches that practiced 10% to 29% of the 44 decreased 1.2%
Churches that practiced less than 10% of the 44 decreased 17.6% Church Health

Pastor Health

This graph is from an English study correlating the enthusiasm of pastors and churches to their relative growth