It happened several years back, but he still remembers the day. And why
not? It was a really bad day.
But that is not the part he remembers most. The part he remembers
is walking the downtown streets of his adopted city, trying to think, trying
to understand, trying to figure out what he needed to do.
It happened several years back, but he still remembers the day. And why
not? It was a really bad day.
But that is not the part he remembers most. The part he remembers
is walking the downtown streets of his adopted city, trying to think, trying
to understand, trying to figure out what he needed to do.
His walk brought him by the First Baptist Church of the city,
an impressive, inviting structure located on the “main drag.”
He thought to go in, to find a place where he could sit and
think – and pray.
He tried the front door, then the side door, then whatever
door he could find.
Nothing.
All were locked.
Much is made these days about making a church accessible, visible.
A lot of attention is paid to – and for – advertising.
Do people know where your church is?
Can they find it easily?
Is it well-located?
While location, location, location is well and good, a new
study suggests churches also should consider something more basic – most
notably, is anyone home?
In other words, once people find your church or come across
its advertisement in the phone book, will they be able to find someone there
to help them?
Surely, they will, one supposes.
In this day and age of telephones and cell phones, answering
machines and voice mails, e-mails and pagers, how could anyone ever be out of
contact?
Suppose again.
Indeed, when a study was made of almost 4,000 churches, calls
to 40 percent of them went unanswered by a live person, even when the calls
were made repeatedly.
In other words, contact was made in some way at only 60 percent
of churches. And that number was reached in the study only after researchers
made as many as 12 calls – each on different days and at different times
– were made to the churches.
It gets worse.
After all, even if a live person did not answer, one would
assume that some sort of contact could be established by leaving a voice mail
or answering machine message.
However, in 44 percent of the churches where a live person
did not answer, there was not even an answering machine to record a message.
In other words, somebody knocked – and nobody answered.
Wait, it gets even worse than that.
It takes an average of 2.1 telephone calls to reach a human
being at a Protestant church during regular weekday business hours, a Barna
Research Group study shows.
In the study, calls to only one-third of the churches were
answered on the first attempt. In 10 percent of the churches eventually reached,
it took at least four calls to make contact with a person.
How many times do you think a person will try before giving
up altogether?
Evangelical churches fared a little better – a person
answered the phone 66 percent of the time for them.
Numbers varied among different denominations. For instance,
non-denominational evangelical churches ranked high in the study – with
80 percent of calls answered by a live person. In turn, black churches had the
lowest responsiveness.
Charismatic and Pentecostal churches were below average as
well – a person answered the phone there just 53 percent of the time. However,
independent fundamentalist churches rated high – their response rate was
81 percent.
Southern Baptists came in higher than the 56 percent average.
A person answered the phone at 66 percent of Southern Baptist churches included
in the study.
At the same time, United Methodist, Evangelical Lutheran, Presbyterian
Church U.S.A. and Episcopal churches all recorded even higher percentages.
Church size makes a difference, the Barna study indicates.
Simply put, the larger a church, the more likely it is that a person will answer
a call – and on the first try. Indeed, in churches with 250 or more adults
members, 70 percent of calls were answered by a live person on the first try.
In churches with less than 100 adult members, that number drops to 44 percent.
“These statistics shed light on a challenge for churches
that hope to connect with their surrounding communities,” notes George
Barna, founder and president of the California-based research firm that conducted
the study. “The exact statistics by denomination or church size are less
important than the overall revelation about the inaccessibility of churches.
“In a world where people are extremely busy and are suspicious
of the practical value of churches, they are not likely to make three or four
calls to a church before they get to speak to a human being.”
Churches that influence communities do so through connections
and relationships, Barna noted in a website report on the study. “The ability
to communicate both personally and on-demand is crucial to fostering trust and
continuity in a relationship,” he maintained.
“If churches really want to help people, they have to
be accessible. When we make it difficult for people to get our attention, we
send a negative message about the heart of the church while also training them
to look elsewhere during their times of need.”
Creative options are available for churches that find it difficult
to have a person on site to answer calls, Barna noted. He cited some churches
that have calls forwarded to homes of members who have agreed to answer them
for the day.
Answering machines are available as well – and relatively
inexpensive.
Voice mail is an option also.
“There are many creative and inexpensive ways for churches
that are presently inaccessible to make connections easier for everyone,”
Barna insisted.
Finding no one home at the church, the man struggling with
his day began to retrace his steps. The wind was colder as the day grew later.
In a bit, as he walked, he heard laughter.
Pausing, he saw an open door across the street. Inside, people
were laughing. One could hear music – and almost feel the warmth from the
room as it swarmed out the door into the chilly afternoon.
The place looked inviting.
He actually thought about crossing the street. And then he
thought of the irony of the situation – the church closed but the local
bar open and welcoming.
He began to walk again.
Maybe he could call the church when he got home and talk to
someone that way.
Maybe he would get an answer.
Maybe not.
Maybe he would call a second time.
Maybe not.
Who can tell?
And unless someone finally answered the call, who would ever
know?
(Information on church-related studies by the Barna Research Group may be found
on the Internet at www.barna.org)