Email Addiction Sweeps into Churches

So I’ll be the first to admit that I’m addicted to checking email. But this latest survey got my attention.

People today check their email from the strangest of places. Where you ask?

•  In bed in their pajamas: 67%
•  From the bathroom: 59% (up from 53% last year)
•  While driving: 50% (up from 37% last year)
•  In a bar or club: 39%
•  In a business meeting: 38%
•  During happy hour: 34%
•  While on a date: 25%
•  From church: 15% (up from 12% last year)

15% from church?! Even that one shocks me a little. Ok pastors and lay leaders, time to chime in. What’s more annoying – someone sleeping in church or someone checking their email on their phone in church?

Further Defining Middle-Class America

Over half of Americans identify themselves as “middle-class.” But according to a recent study by the Pew Research Center, this self-ascribed distinction has varying degrees of meaning.

In fact, this latest study breaks down the middle-class into four categories. And these four slices of America put a twist on the traditional socioeconomic label. The following categories demonstrate the different attitudes and outlook of the middle-class.

The Top of the Middle: This group is the largest segment of the middle-class. They do well financially, are educated, and are typically satisfied with life.

The Struggling Middle: This group is comprised of a disproportionately large amount of women and minorities. They struggle financially, and they have more in common with the lower-class than the middle-class.

The Satisfied Middle: Whereas the struggling middle has more women and minorities, this group has more of an age distinction. They are typically older or younger, with very few middle-agers. They have little in terms of monetary freedom, but they still maintain a bright outlook on the future.

The Anxious Middle: This group has money, like the top of the middle, but they maintain an outlook more similar to the struggling middle.

After reading this study, I realized that our church has a representation from all four categories. And each one requires a different approach in ministry. No label will ever match exactly, but socioeconomic distinctions can become significant hurdles in ministering to people. These class hurdles will probably never be as large as language barriers, but they still exist. And with this awareness, a church is better equipped to reach people where they are.

Churches Need a Shot of Testosterone

Our church staff has a running joke. Whenever we hold Bible studies, we typically ask someone to read the Scripture that pertains to the subject at hand. Inevitably, the awkward pause follows our request for someone to read. Everyone looks down; some take deep breaths as if they are about to start reading. The spiritual tension builds. Then, like always, one of the women in the group takes the plunge and reads.

It’s a silly dynamic, and I don’t think too much of it. But one of our pastors likes to make the point that it’s a microcosm of a more serious issue: men aren’t leading as much as they should in our churches.

A recent article in USA Today expounds upon what pastors observe anecdotally – there are more women in church than men.

This excerpt from Cathy Lynn Grossman’s piece:

Women outnumber men in attendance in every major Christian denomination, and they are 20% to 25% more likely to attend worship at least weekly.

The men are few in the pews, indeed. But what should churches do about this problem? Should they cater their worship services to men? Should we preachers consider our primary sermon audience to be men and preach directly to them? Clearly, the major problem with these strategies is that they could potentially neglect ministry to other groups (particularly women). And we need both solid male and female leaders in the church. But is there a better way to attract more men to church?

Churched/Unchurched: Study Unveils Nuances

What does it mean to be churched? What does it mean to be unchurched? Ellison Research released a study that attempts to shore up the semantic confusion.

They report that those who are churched may not attend as regularly as assumed. And those who are unchurched may not be as far from the church as perceived.

This blurb from the study:

Rather than defining “churched” and “unchurched” as a yes/no equation, if American adults are placed on a more realistic continuum based on their normal behavior, attendance at religious services actually looks like this:

Attend more than once a week:  11%
Attend once a week:  22%
Attend two to three times a month:  14%
Attend once a month:  5%
Attend occasionally, but not on a regular basis:  9%
Attend only on religious holidays:  10%
Do not attend at all:  29%

According to Ellison, labels don’t tell the whole story – 37% of those typified as “churched” don’t go to a worship service every week, and 40% of the “unchurched” actually step foot in a church every now and then.

Fair enough. The problem that I see with the study, however, is the broad scope of the survey. It included over 1,000 Americans, which is certainly a large sample. But it appears to have included people of many faiths. When evangelicals are sliced out of the mix, a different picture appears:

Attend more than once a week:  37%
Attend once a week:  38%
Attend two to three times a month:  14%
Attend once a month:  1%
Attend occasionally, but not on a regular basis:  4%
Attend only on religious holidays:  2%
Do not attend at all:  4%

Now my question: Only 1% of evangelicals are “once-a-month” attenders? I’ll assume their results are correct, but that number surprises me.

Overall, I’m glad to see someone placing a quantitative measure on “unchurched” and “churched.” Too often, these labels are used loosely and without much definition. And what I take from this study is that the “unchurched” may be frequenting churches more often than recognized. What’s your thought?

Why I Chose DBU’s PhD Program

A reader of this blog asked in the thread of my previous post why I chose Dallas Baptist University for my PhD in Leadership Studies. I thought it was a good question. And given that I’ll be studying from a Hampton Inn all week, I figured I’d take a quick break from my lonely hotel academia and answer his question.

So why DBU?

The cohort nature of the program. I wanted to pursue my PhD, but I did not want to be away from my church for 3 days a week. DBU’s cohort program is flexible enough for a full-time pastor to complete it in four years (or maybe seven)…

Diversity of my cohorts’ backgrounds. One of the more attractive aspects of the program is the diversity of the people. In our group are pastors, business people, and academics from different parts of the world. This global blend of people brings many different perspectives to the table.

Servant-leader focus. Since one of my passions is to train the saints, DBU’s focus on servant-leadership will certainly equip me better to equip others.

Personal degree mix. I have an undergraduate degree from the University of South Carolina (the real USC) in finance and marketing, as well as a Master’s in Missiology from Southern Seminary. Since I have a business degree and a theological degree, a leadership degree rounds out a good personal degree mix from three very different schools.

High praise. I heard of the program through several of my mentors, all of whom said that DBU was the place to go.

Strong leadership. It only makes sense that a school for leaders has a strong leader at its helm. Such is the case at DBU. Dr. Gary Cook, DBU’s president and for whom the leadership school is named, has been at the school for 20 years. During his tenure, DBU has undergone a tremendous transformation.

Well, enough of a break. Now it’s back to studying…