/ 2005
Survey2) Regarding question 7, I think this is highly misleading as many churches are created from splits from existing churches. The real question is about the number of totally new churches which do not draw significantly on ex-members of existing churches. This is extremely difficult to estimate.
- about the survey
- take the survey (closed)
- about emRG
- survey status
- FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
1) Scott, would you be able to give us more of an explanation on how this
method of estimation could be as much or even more accurate than the
actual counting of church attendance, etc.?
You are abslutely right. Many new "plants" are really splits off existing churches. As you also say, it is extremely difficult to count the number of new church plants that grow membership through evangelism... because there are so few of them.
This survey is really just a first very general step in gaining a deeper understanding of the spiritual climate in Europe. I hope in the future that we can use more specific research to find out about true church planting movements in Europe- church planting that grows through evangelism. This is certainly in line with the longer range goals of our network: emRG.
The
type of data gathered in this survey is perception So, at this
point, this should be considered as very different from a tradtional
"census-style" research project in which each church and Christian is
counted. Many
missionaries believe that the only valid data is to literally count
every single church and Christian in a region and report
this fact.
However, this assumes that those numbers will remain static for very
long periods of time. We know that these numbers vary daily, weekly,
and monthly. As a result, a mass number of perceptions is probably as
close to current reality as the actually counting.
As a post-script, I do not want to come off as though all church and Christian counting done in the past was wrong, useless, and dishonest. The men and women who have been doing this traditional style of counting have really made a hard and sincere effort in seeking the spiritual truth in their nations. I do applaud their efforts and sacrifice. My whole point in offereing up this alternate method of estimation is to ease the burden of these researchers and model a way in which to produce a more timely spiritual picture of a region.
2) Regarding question 7, I think this is highly misleading as many
churches are created from splits from existing churches.
The real question is about the number of totally new churches which do
not draw significantly on ex-members of existing churches. This is
extremely difficult to estimate.Perhaps this hypothetical example will illustrate my point.
Let's consider a region xx1 with Huck, the traditional missionary's researcher. Below is a timeline with dates, the real and true number of Christians, and the real and true number of churches...
In late March, Huck decides to measure the number of the Christians and churches in xx1. Unlike 99.9% of missionaries, Huck has a bottomless research budget and can hire 100 workers to cover the entire xx1 region to get a good count in April. This same month, Fred, in intrepid researcher from emRG begins polling missionaries in xx1 to estimate the number of Christians and churches.
Huck makes a miraculously accurate count in April of 3331 Christians 696 churches. He now begins to confirm his data with denominational heads (this is required if you are actually counting members and churches) and writing up his results.
By the end of July, Fred has gathered twenty estimates. The average of the estimates is 3352 Christians with a standard deviation of 47 and 730 churches with a standard deviation of 18. Both Huck and Fred complete their reports in August and report their findings to the world.
I believe that this example is actually generous to the traditional method. It usually takes 18 month to 3 years to measure a region in the traditional way. Furthermore, another year is usually spent writing and verifying data. Since time is the enemy of the traditional method, you can see how it can yield inaccuracies.
On the other hand, the survey of estimates is done quickly, without church politics, and never claims to be more than it is- an estimate.
Let's consider a region xx1 with Huck, the traditional missionary's researcher. Below is a timeline with dates, the real and true number of Christians, and the real and true number of churches...
Jan 2002: 3006 Chirstians and 678 churches
Feb 2002: 3146 Christians and 678 churches
Mar 2002: 3201 Christians and 677 churches
Feb 2002: 3146 Christians and 678 churches
Mar 2002: 3201 Christians and 677 churches
In late March, Huck decides to measure the number of the Christians and churches in xx1. Unlike 99.9% of missionaries, Huck has a bottomless research budget and can hire 100 workers to cover the entire xx1 region to get a good count in April. This same month, Fred, in intrepid researcher from emRG begins polling missionaries in xx1 to estimate the number of Christians and churches.
April 2002: 3331 Christians and 696 churches
Huck makes a miraculously accurate count in April of 3331 Christians 696 churches. He now begins to confirm his data with denominational heads (this is required if you are actually counting members and churches) and writing up his results.
May 2002: 3420 Christians and 697 churches
June 2002: 3418 Christians and 703 churches
July 2002: 3590 Christians and 711 churches
June 2002: 3418 Christians and 703 churches
July 2002: 3590 Christians and 711 churches
By the end of July, Fred has gathered twenty estimates. The average of the estimates is 3352 Christians with a standard deviation of 47 and 730 churches with a standard deviation of 18. Both Huck and Fred complete their reports in August and report their findings to the world.
Huck: "I have measured that there are 3331 Christians and 696 churches in xx1."
Fred: "I estimate (with 90% confidence) that there are 3258 to 3446 Christians and 694 to 766 churches in xx1."
Aug 2002: 3610 Christians and 715 churches (The reality of the moment).
Fred: "I estimate (with 90% confidence) that there are 3258 to 3446 Christians and 694 to 766 churches in xx1."
Aug 2002: 3610 Christians and 715 churches (The reality of the moment).
I believe that this example is actually generous to the traditional method. It usually takes 18 month to 3 years to measure a region in the traditional way. Furthermore, another year is usually spent writing and verifying data. Since time is the enemy of the traditional method, you can see how it can yield inaccuracies.
On the other hand, the survey of estimates is done quickly, without church politics, and never claims to be more than it is- an estimate.
As a post-script, I do not want to come off as though all church and Christian counting done in the past was wrong, useless, and dishonest. The men and women who have been doing this traditional style of counting have really made a hard and sincere effort in seeking the spiritual truth in their nations. I do applaud their efforts and sacrifice. My whole point in offereing up this alternate method of estimation is to ease the burden of these researchers and model a way in which to produce a more timely spiritual picture of a region.
You are abslutely right. Many new "plants" are really splits off existing churches. As you also say, it is extremely difficult to count the number of new church plants that grow membership through evangelism... because there are so few of them.
This survey is really just a first very general step in gaining a deeper understanding of the spiritual climate in Europe. I hope in the future that we can use more specific research to find out about true church planting movements in Europe- church planting that grows through evangelism. This is certainly in line with the longer range goals of our network: emRG.
Scott Friderich.