New England's Book of Acts

WHAT IS IT?

New England’s Book of Acts is a publication of the Emmanuel Gospel Center (EGC) that captures the stories of how God has been growing his Church among many people groups and ethnic groups in New England.

WHERE IS IT?

An online version of the book is available here.

HOW AND WHY WAS IT WRITTEN?

Intercultural Leadership Consultation 2007

Between 2000 and 2007, EGC collaborated with various church groups and leaders to compile stories, articles, and resources that help tell the story of what God is doing in New England. Then on October 20, 2007, EGC convened the Intercultural Leadership Consultation, a one-day conference to share the stories captured in New England’s Book of Acts. Four hundred leaders from over 45 ethnic and people groups around New England gathered to learn and celebrate. These included Christian leaders who were Puerto Rican, Colombian, Haitian, Brazilian, Czech, Egyptian, Malawian, Ugandan, Ghanaian, Liberian, Indian, Bengali, Indonesian, Filipino, Cambodian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Mashpee Wampanoag, and Massachusett Natick Indian. Each participant was given a copy of the book.

WHAT’S NEXT?

Updates. In the ten years since publication, there has been some limited updating and editing to the material, and yet, as time goes by, these organic church systems continue to grow and change, so there are many more stories to be told. As these stories are updated, they will be made available here.

We are currently working on these updates, which will be posted soon. When they are posted, we will add the links:

• The Chinese Churches in Greater Boston

• The Story of the Brazilian Church in Greater Boston

• The Story of the Ethiopian Christian Community in New England

WHAT’S IN THE ORIGINAL BOOK?

Section One

Section One provides an overview of some of the ways God has worked among people who came to Boston and New England and offers a framework to guide our thinking. Research on past revivals and the current Quiet Revival help us gain perspective and look forward to what God will continue to do here. Hopefully, these articles will expand our vision of the Kingdom of God here in New England.

Some of the topics covered in Section One are:

• Seeing the Church with Kingdom Eyes

• What is the Quiet Revival?

• History of Revivalism in New England

• Five Stages of Sustained Revival

Additional helpful resources along this line are:

• Understanding Boston’s Quiet Revival (2013)

• The Quiet Revival: New Immigrants and the Transformation of Christianity in Greater Boston (2014). Basing much of her research on New England’s Book of Acts, Marilynn Johnson, professor of history at Boston College, has written a 28-page paper on the Quiet Revival which was published in Religion and American Culture, Summer 2014, Vol. 24, No. 2. To read it online, click here.

Section Two

Section Two gives examples of how God is at work among the churches of New England. Many of these 24 reports were written by leaders from within the various groups. Others were produced by the Applied Research staff at EGC. This section also includes reports on multicultural churches, international student ministry, and more. Of course not every church or ministry group has been mentioned in this publication. However, there is enough information for users to connect with many various streams, and inspiration to develop stories on those that are not mentioned here. We would love to hear from you if you pursue research on another group among New England’s church streams.

Section Three

Section Three offers a rich selection of articles on topics like leadership development, evangelism, church planting, youth and second generation ministry, diaspora ministry, and social ministries. Some of these selections describe models of ministry in these areas, while others give nuggets of wisdom from experienced leaders. We hope those who also face similar challenges in developing leadership, reaching youth, and meeting other needs, can use these ideas and models.

TAKE ACTION

Questions? If you have questions about New England’s Book of Acts, don’t hesitate to be in touch. Or if you would like to help us continue telling the story of God’s work through the various people streams in New England, we would love to hear from you.

Contact Us

Contact Us

Understanding Boston's Quiet Revival

Resources for the urban pastor and community leader published by Emmanuel Gospel Center, Boston

Emmanuel Research Review reprint
Issue No. 94 — December 2013 - January 2014

Introduced by Brian Corcoran

Managing Editor, Emmanuel Research Review

Boston’s Quiet Revival started nearly 50 years ago, bringing an unprecedented and sustained period of new church planting across the city. In 1993, when the Applied Research team at the Emmanuel Gospel Center (EGC) began to analyze our latest church survey statistics and realized how extensive church planting had been during the previous 25 years, resulting in a 50% net increase in the number of churches, Doug Hall, president, coined the term, “Quiet Revival.” This movement, he later wrote, is “a highly interrelated social/spiritual system” that does not function “in a way that lends itself to a mechanistic form of analysis.” That is why, he theorized, we could not see it for years.* Perhaps because it was so hard to see, it also has been hard to understand all that is meant by the term.

One of the most obvious evidences of the Quiet Revival is that the number of churches within the city limits of Boston has nearly doubled since 1965. Starting with that one piece of evidence, Steve Daman, EGC’s senior writer, has been working on a descriptive definition of the Quiet Revival. It is our hope that launching out from this discussion and the questions Steve raises, more people can grow toward shared understanding and enter into meaningful dialog about this amazing work of God. We also hope that more can participate in fruitful ministries that are better aligned with what God has done and is continuing to do in Boston today. And thirdly, we want to inspire thoughtful scholars who will identify intriguing puzzles which will prompt additional study.

*Hall, Douglas A. and Judy Hall. “Two Secrets of the Quiet Revival.” New England’s Book of Acts. Emmanuel Gospel Center, 2007.  Accessed 01/24/14.

What is the Quiet Revival?

by Steve Daman, Senior Writer, Emmanuel Gospel Center

What is the Quiet Revival? Here is a working definition:

The Quiet Revival is an unprecedented and sustained period of Christian growth in the city of Boston beginning in 1965 and persisting for nearly five decades so far.

What questions come to mind when you read this description? To start, why did we choose the words: “unprecedented”, “sustained”, “Christian growth”, and “1965”?  Can we defend or define these terms? Or what about the terms “revival” and “quiet”? What do we mean? And what might happen to our definition if the revival, if it is a revival, “persists” for more than “five decades”? How will we know if it ends?

These are great questions. But before we try to answer a few of them, let’s add more flesh to the bones by describing some of the outcomes that those who recognize the Quiet Revival attribute to this movement. These outcomes help us to ponder both the scope and nature of the movement:

The number of churches in Boston has nearly doubled since 1965, though the city’s population is about the same now as then.

Today, Boston’s Christian church community is characterized by a growing unity, increased prayer, maturing church systems, and a strong and trained leadership.

The spiritual vitality of churches birthed during the Quiet Revival has spread, igniting additional church development and social ministries in the region and across the globe.

From these we can infer more questions, but the overarching one is this: “How do we know?” Surely we can verify the numbers and defend the first statement regarding the number of churches, but the following assertions are harder to verify. How do we know there is “a growing unity, increased prayer, maturing church systems, and a strong and trained leadership”? The implication is that these characteristics are valid evidences for a revival and that they have appeared or grown since the start of the Quiet Revival. Further, has “the spiritual vitality of churches birthed during the Quiet Revival… spread, igniting additional church development and social ministries in the region and across the globe”? What evidence is there? If these assertions are true, then indeed we have seen an amazing work of God in Boston, and we would do well to carefully consider how that reality shapes what we think about Boston, what we think about the Church in Boston, and how we go about our work in this particular field.

Numbers tell the story

The chief indicator of the Quiet Revival is the growth in the number of new churches planted in Boston since 1965. The Emmanuel Gospel Center (EGC) began counting churches in 1969 when we identified 300 Christian churches within Boston city limits. The Center conducted additional surveys in 1975, 1989, and 1993.¹ When we completed our 1993 survey, our statistics showed that during the 24 years from 1969 to 1993, the total number of churches in the city had increased by 50%, even after it overcame a 23% loss of mainline Protestant churches and some decline among Roman Catholic churches.

That data point got our attention. At a time when people were asking us, “Why is the Church in Boston dying?” the numbers told a very different story.

Just four years before the discovery, when we published the first Boston Church Directory in 1989, we saw the numbers rising. EGC President Doug Hall recalls, “As we completed the 1989 directory and began to compile the figures, we were amazed to discover that something very significant was occurring. But it wasn’t until our next update in 1993 that we knew conclusively that the number of churches had grown—and not by just 30 percent as we had first thought, but by 50 percent! We had been part of a revival and did not know it.”² It was then Doug Hall coined the term, the Quiet Revival.

Fifty-five new churches had been planted in the four years since the previous survey, bringing the 1993 total to 459. EGC’s Senior Researcher Rudy Mitchell wrote at the time, “Since 1968 at least 207 new churches have started in Boston. This is undoubtedly more new church starts than in any other 25-year period in Boston’s history.”³

In the 20 years since then, church planting has continued at a robust rate. EGC’s count for 2010 was 575, showing a net gain since the start of the Quiet Revival of 257 new churches. The Applied Research staff at the Center is now in the beginning stages of a new city-wide church survey. Already we have added more than 50 new churches to our list (planted between 2008 and 2014) while at the same time we see that a number of churches have closed, moved, or merged. It seems likely from these early indicators that the number of churches in Boston has continued to increase, and the total for 2014 will be larger than the 575 we counted in 2010, getting us even closer to that seductive “doubling” of the number since 1965, when there were 318 churches.⁴

Regardless of where we go with our definition, what terms we use, and what else we may discover about the churches in Boston, this one fact is enough to tell us that God has done something significant in this city. We have seen a church-planting movement that has crossed culture, language, race, neighborhood, denomination, economic levels, and educational qualifications, something that no organization, program, or human institution could ever accomplish in its own strength.

Defining terms

Let’s return to our working definition and consider its parts.

The Quiet Revival is an unprecedented and sustained period of Christian growth in the city of Boston beginning in 1965 and persisting for nearly five decades so far.

“Quiet”

The term “quiet” works well here because of its obvious opposite. We can envision “noisy” revivals, very emotional and exciting local events where participants may experience the presence of the Holy Spirit in powerful ways. If something like that is our mental model of revival, then to classify any revival as “quiet” immediately gets our attention and tempts us to think that maybe something different is going on here. How or why could a revival be quiet?

In this case, the term “quiet” points to the initially invisible nature of this revival. Doug Hall used the term “invisible Church” in 1993, writing that researchers tend “to document the highly visible information that is pertinent to Boston. We also want to go beyond the obvious developments to discover a Christianity that is hidden, and that is characteristically urban. By looking past the obvious, we have discovered the ‘invisible Church.’”⁵

An uncomfortable but important question to ask is, “From whom was it hidden?” If we are talking about a church movement starting in 1965, we can assume that the majority of people who may have had an interest in counting all the churches in the city—people like missiological researchers, denominational leaders, or seminary professors—were probably predominantly mainline or evangelical white people. This church-planting movement was hidden, EGC’s Executive Director Jeff Bass says, because “the growth was happening in non-mainline systems, non-English speaking systems, denominations you have never heard of, churches that meet in storefronts, churches that meet on Sunday afternoons.”⁶

Jeff points out that EGC had been working among immigrant churches since the 1960s, recognizing that God was at work in those communities. “We felt the vitality of the Church in the non-English speaking immigrant communities,” he says. Through close relationships with leaders from different communities, beginning in the 1980s, EGC was asked to help provide a platform for ministers-at-large who would serve broadly among the Brazilian, the Haitian, and the Latino churches. “These were growing communities, but even then,” Jeff says, “these communities weren’t seen by the whole Church as significant, so there was still this old way of looking at things.”⁷ Even though EGC became totally immersed in these diverse living systems, we were also blind to the full scale of what God was doing at the time.

Gregg Detwiler, director of Intercultural Ministries at EGC, calls this blindness “a learning disability,” and says that many Christian leaders missed seeing the Quiet Revival in Boston through sociological oversight. “By sociological oversight, I am pointing to the human tendency toward ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism is a learning disability of evaluating reality from our own overly dominant ethnic or cultural perspective. We are all susceptible to this malady, which clouds our ability to see clearly. The reason many missed seeing the Quiet Revival in Boston was because they were not in relationship with where Kingdom growth was occurring in the city—namely, among the many and varied ethnic groups.”⁸

The pervasive mental model of what the Church in Boston looks like, at least from the perspective of white evangelicals, needs major revision. To open our arms wide to the people of God, to embrace the whole Body of Christ, whether we are white or people of color, we all must humble ourselves, continually repenting of our tendency toward prejudice, and we must learn to look for the places where God, through his Holy Spirit, is at work in our city today.

We not only suffer from sociological oversight, Gregg says, but we also suffer from theological oversight. “By theological oversight I mean not seeing the city and the city church in a positive biblical light,” he writes. “All too often the city is viewed only as a place of darkness and sin, rather than a strategic place where God does His redeeming work and exports it to the nations.” The majority culture, especially the suburban culture, found it hard to imagine God’s work was bursting at the seams in the inner city. Theological oversight may also suggest having a view of the Church that does not embrace the full counsel of God. If some Christians do not look like folks in my church, or they don’t worship in the same way, or they emphasize different portions of Scripture, are they still part of the Body of Christ? To effectively serve the Church in Boston, the Emmanuel Gospel Center purposes to be careful about the ways we subconsciously set boundaries around the idea of church. We are learning to define “church” to include all those who love the Lord Jesus Christ, who have a high view of Scripture, and who wholeheartedly agree to the historic creeds.

If we can learn to see the whole Church with open eyes, maybe we can also learn to hear the Quiet Revival with open ears, though many living things are “quiet.” A flower garden makes little noise. You cannot hear a pumpkin grow. So, too, the Church in Boston has grown mightily and quietly at the same time. “Whoever has ears to hear,” our Lord said, “let them hear” (Mark. 4:9 NIV).

“Revival”

What is revival? A definition would certainly be helpful, but one is difficult to come by. There are perhaps as many definitions as there are denominations. All of them carry some emotional charge or some room for interpretation. Yet the word “revival” does not appear in the Bible. As we ask the question: “Is the Quiet Revival really a revival?” we need to find a way to reach agreement. What are we looking for? What are the characteristics of a true revival?

Tim Keller, founding pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, has written on the subject of revival and offers this simple definition: “Revival is an intensification of the ordinary operations of the work of the Holy Spirit.” Keller goes on to say it is “a time when the ordinary operations of the Holy Spirit—not signs and wonders, but the conviction of sin, conversion, assurance of salvation and a sense of the reality of Jesus Christ on the heart—are intensified, so that you see growth in the quality of the faith in the people in your church, and a great growth in numbers and conversions as well.”⁹ This idea of intensification of the ordinary is helpful. If church planting is ordinary, from an ecclesiological frame of reference, then robust church planting would be an intensification of the ordinary, and thus a work of God.

David Bebbington, professor of history at the University of Stirling in Scotland, states in Victorian Religious Revivals: Culture and Piety in Local and Global Contexts, that there are several types or “patterns” of revival. First, revival commonly means “an apparently spontaneous event in a congregation,” usually marked by repentance and conversions. Secondly, it means “a planned mission in a congregation or town.” This practice is called revivalism, he notes, “to distinguish it from the traditional style of unprompted awakenings.” Bebbington’s third pattern is “an episode, mainly spontaneous, affecting a larger area than a single congregation.” His fourth category he calls an awakening, which is “a development in a culture at large, usually being both wider and longer than other episodes of this kind.” In summary, “revivals have taken a variety of forms, spontaneous or planned, small-scale or vast.”¹⁰

These are helpful categories. Using Bebbington’s analysis, we would say the Quiet Revival definitely does not fit his first and second patterns, but rather fits into his third and fourth patterns. The Quiet Revival was mainly spontaneous. While we can assume there was planning involved in every individual church plant, the movement itself was too broad and diverse to be the result of any one person’s or one organization’s plan. The Quiet Revival seems to have emerged from the various immigrant communities across the city simultaneously, and has been, as Bebbington says, “both wider and longer than other episodes of this kind.” The Quiet Revival was and is vast, city-wide, regional, and not small-scale.

Since at least the 1970s, and maybe before that, many people have proclaimed that New England or Boston would be a center or catalyst for a world-wide revival, or possibly one final revival before Christ’s return. But even that prophecy, impossible to substantiate, is hard to define. What would that global revival actually look like? Scripture seems to affirm that the Church grows best under persecution. That is certainly true today. Missionary author and professor Nik Ripken¹¹ has chronicled the stories of Christians living in countries where Christianity is outlawed and gives remarkable testimony to the ways the Church thrives under persecution. Yet it would seem that what people describe or hope for when they talk about revival in Boston has nothing to do with persecution or hardship.

Dr. Roberto Miranda, senior pastor of Congregación León de Judá in Boston, has revival on his mind. In addition to a recent blog on his church’s website reviewing a book about the Scottish and Welsh revivals, he spoke in 2007 on his vision for revival in New England.¹² Despite the fact that few agree on what revival looks like and what we should expect, should God send even more revival to Boston, the subject is always close at hand.

Again, it is interesting that so many Christians would miss seeing the Quiet Revival when there were so many voices in the Church predicting a Boston revival during the same time frame. Many of them, no doubt, are still looking.

“unprecedented”

As mentioned earlier, EGC’s Senior Researcher Rudy Mitchell wrote in 1993, “Since 1968 at least 207 new churches have started in Boston. This is undoubtedly more new church starts than in any other 25-year period in Boston’s history.” What Rudy wrote in 1993 continues to be true today, as it appears the rate of church planting has not fallen off since then. Never before has Boston seen such a wave of new church development. God, indeed, has been good to Boston.

“sustained”

The EGC Applied Research team will be able to assess whether or not the Quiet Revival church planting movement is continuing once we complete our 2014 survey. It is remarkable that the Quiet Revival has continued for as long as it has. The next question to consider is “why?” What are the factors that have allowed this movement to continue for so long unabated? What gives it fuel? We may also want to know who are the church planters today, and are they in some way being energized by what has gone on during the previous five decades?

Rev. Ralph Kee, a veteran Boston church planter, and animator of the Greater Boston Church Planting Collaborative, wants to see new churches be “churches that plant churches that plant churches.” He says we need to put into the DNA of a new church this idea that multiplication is normal and expected. He has documented the genealogical tree of one Boston church planted in 1971 that has since given birth to hundreds of known daughter and granddaughter and great-granddaughter churches. Is the Quiet Revival sustained because Boston’s newest churches naturally multiply?

Another reason the Quiet Revival has continued for decades may be the introduction of a contextualized urban seminary into the city as the Quiet Revival was gaining momentum. EGC recently published an interview with Rev. Eldin Villafañe, Ph.D., the founding director of the Center for Urban Ministerial Education (CUME), the Boston campus of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, and a professor of Christian social ethics at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. Dr. Villafañe confirmed CUME was shaped by the Quiet Revival. But as both are interconnected living systems, CUME also shaped the revival, giving it depth and breadth.

“One of the problems with revivals anywhere,” Dr. Villafañe points out, “is oftentimes you have good strong evangelism that begins to grows a church, but the growth does not come with trained leadership, educated biblically and theologically. You can have all kinds of problems. Besides heresy, you can have recidivism, people going back to their old ways. The beautiful thing about the Quiet Revival is that just as it begins to flourish, CUME is coming aboard.”¹³

CUME was in place as a contextualized urban seminary to “backfill theology into the revival,” as Jeff Bass describes it, training thousands of local, urban leaders since 1976, with 300 students now attending each year.

“Christian growth”

We use the words “Christian growth” rather than “church growth” for a reason. We want to move our attention beyond the numbers of churches to begin to comprehend how these new churches may have influenced the city. Surely it is not only the number of churches that has grown. The number of people attending churches has also grown. One of the goals of the EGC Applied Research team is to document the number of people attending Boston’s churches today.¹⁴

But as we look beyond the number of churches and the number of people in those churches, we also want to see how these people have impacted the city. “Christians collectively make a difference in society,”¹⁵ says Dana Robert, director of the Center for Global Christianity and Mission at Boston University. Exploring and documenting the ways that Christians in Boston have made an impact on the city, showing ways the city has changed during the Quiet Revival, would be an important and valuable contribution to the ongoing study of Christianity in Boston.

“city of Boston”

We mean something very specific when we say “the city of Boston.” As Rudy Mitchell pointed out in the April 2013 Issue of the Review, one needs to understand exactly what geographical boundaries a particular study has in mind. “Boston” may mean different things. “This could range from the named city’s official city limits, to its county, metropolitan statistical area, or even to a media area covering several surrounding states.” Regarding the Quiet Revival, we mean Boston’s official city limits which today include distinct neighborhoods such as Roxbury, Dorchester, Jamaica Plain, East Boston, etc., all part of the city itself.

Boston’s boundaries have not changed during the Quiet Revival, but when we have occasion to look further back into history and consider the churches active in Boston in previous generations, we need to adjust the figures according the where the city’s boundary lines fell at different points in history as communities were absorbed into Boston or as new land was claimed from the sea.

EGC’s data gathering and analysis is, for the most part, restricted to the city of Boston, as we have described it. However, the Center’s work through our various programs often extends beyond these boundaries through relational networks, and we see the same dynamics at work in other urban areas in Greater Boston and beyond. It would be interesting to compare the patterns of new church development among immigrant populations in these other cities with what we are learning in Boston. There is, for example, some very interesting work being done on New York City’s churches on a Web site called “A Journey Through NYC Religions” (http://www.nycreligion.info/).

“1965”

We chose 1965 as a start date for the Quiet Revival for two reasons. First, there seems to be a change in the rate of new church plants in Boston starting in 1965. Of the 575 churches active in Boston in 2010, 17 were founded throughout the 1950s, showing a rate of less than 2 per year. Seven more started between 1960 and 1963 while none were founded in 1964, still progressing at a rate of less than 2 per year. Then, over the next five years, from 1965 to 1969, 20 of today’s churches were planted (averaging 4 per year); about 40 more were launched in the 1970s (still 4 per year), 60 in the 1980s (averaging 6 per year), 70 in the 1990s (averaging 7 per year), and 60 in the 2000s (6 per year). Again, we are counting only the churches that remain until today. A large number of others were started and either closed or merged with other churches, so the actual number of new churches planted each year was higher.

Another reason for choosing 1965 as the start date was that the Immigration Act of 1965 opened the door to thousands of new immigrants moving into Boston. Our research shows that the majority of Boston’s new churches were started by Boston’s newest residents, and that that trend continued for years. For example, of the 100 churches planted between 2000 and 2005, about 15% were Hispanic, 10% were Haitian, and 6% were Brazilian. At least 5% were Asian and another 7% were African. Not more than 14 of the 100 churches planted during those years were primarily Anglo or Anglo/multiethnic. The remaining 40 to 45% of new churches were African American, Caribbean or of some other ethnic identity.

Throughout the first few decades of the Quiet Revival, most, but not all new church development occurred within the new immigrant communities. At the same time many immigrant communities experienced significant growth in Boston, the African American population was also growing, showing an increase of 40% between 1970 and 1990. Between 1965 and 1993, although 39 African American churches closed their doors, well over 100 new ones started, for a net increase of about 75 churches. Among today’s total of 140 congregations with an African American identity, 57 were planted during those early years of the Quiet Revival between 1965 and 1993. Many of these churches have grown under skilled leadership to be counted among the most influential congregations in Boston, and new Black churches continue to emerge.

The year 1965 was a year of much change. While we point to these two specific reasons for picking this start date for the Quiet Revival (the change in the rate of church planting in Boston and the Immigration Act of 1965), there were other movements at play. A charismatic renewal began to sweep across the country at that time starting in the Catholic and Episcopal communities on the West Coast. Close on its heels was the Jesus Movement. Vatican II, which was a multi-year conference, coincidentally closed in 1965, bringing sweeping changes to the Roman Catholic community. Socially, the civil rights movement was front and center during those years.

It seems obvious from the evidence of who was planting churches that one of the main influencing factors was the Pentecostal movement among the immigrant communities. It may also be helpful to explore some of the other cultural movements occurring simultaneously to see if other influences helped to fan the flames. We may discover that in addition to immigration factors, various other streams—whether cultural, Diaspora, theological, or social—were used by God to facilitate the growth of this movement.

Boston’s population

Some may wrongly assume that the growing number of new churches in Boston must relate to a growing population. This is certainly not true of Boston. The population of the city of Boston was 616,326 in 1965 and forty-five years later, in 2010, was very nearly the same at 617,594. During those years, however, the population actually declined by more than 50,000 to 562,994 in 1980. This shows that this remarkable increase in the number of churches is not the result of a much larger population.

While the population total was about the same in 2010 as it was in 1965, the makeup of that population has changed dramatically through immigration and migration, and this is a very significant factor in understanding the Quiet Revival.

One issue that still needs to be addressed is Boston’s church attendance in proportion to the population. Based on our current research and over 40 years’ experience studying Boston’s church systems, we estimate that this number has increased from about 3% to as much as perhaps 15% during this period. EGC is preparing to conduct additional comprehensive research to accurately assess the percentage of Bostonians who attend churches.

The other indicators

How do we know there is “a growing unity, increased prayer, maturing church systems, and a strong and trained leadership”? What evidence is there that “the spiritual vitality of churches birthed during the Quiet Revival has spread, igniting additional church development and social ministries in the region and across the globe”?

The work required to clearly document and defend these statements is daunting. These issues are important to the Applied Research staff, and we welcome assistance from interested scholars and researchers to help us further develop these analyses. In a future edition of this journal, we may be able to start to bring together some evidences to support these assertions, but we do not have the time or space to do more than to give a few examples here.

We have compiled information relevant to each of these specific areas. For example, we have evidence of more expressions of unity among churches and church leaders, such as the Fellowship of Haitian Evangelical Pastors of New England. We continue to discover more collaborative networks, and more prayer movements, such as the annual Greater Boston Prayer Summit for pastors, which began in 2000. We can point to churches and church systems that have grown to maturity and are bearing much fruit in both the proclamation of the Gospel and in social ministries, such as the Black Ministerial Alliance of Greater Boston. We are aware of several excellent organizations and schools where leaders may be trained and grow in their skills, in knowledge, and in collaborative ministry.¹⁶

For the staff of EGC, this is all far more than an academic exercise. We work in this city and many of us make it our home as well. It is a vibrant and exciting place to be, precisely because the Quiet Revival has changed this city on so many levels. Doug and Judy Hall, EGC’s president and assistant to the president, have been serving in Boston at EGC since 1964, and they have observed these changes. A number of others on our staff have also been working among these churches for decades, including Senior Researcher Rudy Mitchell, who started studying churches and neighborhoods in 1976. Doug Hall says that in the 1960s, it was hard to recommend many good churches, ones for which you would have some confidence to suggest to a new believer or new arrival. Not so today. Today in Boston there are many, many healthy and vibrant churches to choose from all across the city. Our understanding of the Quiet Revival is not only a matter of statistics, it is our actual experience as our work puts us in a position to constantly interact with church leaders representing many different communities in the city.

It appears from this vantage point that the rate of church planting in Boston continues to be robust as we approach the 50-year mark for the Quiet Revival. We are looking forward with excitement to see what the new numbers are when the 2014 church survey is complete. It also appears from the many evidences gained through our relational networks across Boston that these additional indicators of the Quiet Revival also continue to grow stronger.

Notes

(If the resources below are not linked, it is because in 2016 we migrated from EGC’s old website to a new site, and not all documents and pages have been posted. As we are able, we will repost articles from the Emmanuel Research Review and link those that are mentioned below. If you have questions, please click the Take Action button below and Contact Rudy Mitchell, Senior Researcher.)

¹We have written in previous issues about these surveys. See the following editions of the Emmanuel Research Review: No. 18, June 2006, Surveying Churches; No. 19, July/August 2006, Surveying Churches II: The Changing Church System in Boston; No. 21, October 2006, Surveying Churches III: Facts that Tell a Story.

²Daman, Steve. “1969-2005: Four Decades of Church Surveys.” Inside EGC 12, no. 5 (September-October, 2005): p. 4.

³Mitchell, Rudy. “A Portrait of Boston’s Churches.” in Hall, Douglas, Rudy Mitchell, and Jeffrey Bass. Christianity in Boston: A Series of Monographs & Case Studies on the Vitality of the Church in Boston. Boston, MA, U.S.A: Emmanuel Gospel Center, 1993. p. B-14.

⁴We estimate the number of churches in 1965 was 318, based on information derived from Polk’s Boston City Directory (https://archive.org/details/bostondirectoryi11965bost) for that year and adjusted to include only Christian churches. In 1965, many small, newer African American churches were thriving in low-cost storefronts and many of the smaller neighborhood mainline churches had not yet closed or moved out of the city (but many soon would). While there were not yet many new immigrant churches, the city's African American population was growing very significantly and also expanding into new neighborhoods where new congregations were needed.

⁵Hall, Douglas A., from the Foreword to the section entitled “A Portrait of Boston’s Churches” by Rudy Mitchell, in Hall, Douglas, Rudy Mitchell, and Jeffrey Bass. Christianity in Boston: A Series of Monographs & Case Studies on the Vitality of the Church in Boston. Boston, MA, U.S.A: Emmanuel Gospel Center, 1993. p. B-1.

⁶Daman, Steve. “EGC’s Research Uncovers the Quiet Revival.” Inside EGC 20, no. 4 (November-December 2013): p. 2.

⁷Ibid.

⁸Emmanuel Research Review, No. 60, November 2010, There’s Gold in the City.

⁹Keller, Tim. “Questions for Sleepy and Nominal Christians.” Worldview Church Digest, March 13, 2013. Web. Accessed January 27, 2014.

¹⁰Bebbington, D W. Victorian Religious Revivals: Culture and Piety in Local and Global Contexts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. p.3.

¹¹Ripken, Nik. personal website. n.d. http://www.nikripken.com/

¹²Miranda, Roberto. “A vision for revival in New England.” April 7, 2006. Web.

¹³Daman, Steve. “The City Gives Birth to a Seminary.” Africanus Journal Vol. 8, No. 1, April 2016, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, Center for Urban Ministerial Education. p. 33.

¹⁴We wrote about the difficulties national organizations have in coming up with that figure in a previous edition of the Review: No. 88, April 2013, “Perspectives on Boston Church Statistics: Is Greater Boston Really Only 2% Evangelical?”

¹⁵Dilley, Andrea Palpant. “The World the Missionaries Made.” Christianity Today 58, no. 1 (January/February 2014): p. 34. Web. Accessed: January 30, 2014. Dilley quotes Robert at the end of her article on the impact some 19th century missionaries had shaping culture in positive ways.

¹⁶A number of educational opportunities for church leaders are listed in the Review, No. 70, Sept 2011, “Urban Ministry Training Programs & Centers.”

TAKE ACTION

We have mentioned throughout this article that we would welcome scholars, researchers, and interns who could help contribute to our understanding of this movement in Boston. 

Note: Some document links might connect to resources that are no longer active.

The Unsolved Leadership Challenge

The Unsolved Leadership Challenge

AIM OF THIS STUDY

In this study of new church development in Greater Boston, we identified at least 95 new congregations which have started in the last seven years. Forty-six were within the city limits of Boston. We completed 41 in-depth interviews with church planters who represented several different denominations, ethnic groups, and networks. The research yielded general information about the church planters and the new churches, with a special focus on women in leadership. The hope is that this study can become a source of “mainstreaming” gender parity discourse within the church, as part of an overall discussion of the practical needs of church planters in the areas of leadership and ministry development

Emmanuel Research Review

WHAT IS IT?

The Emmanuel Research Review (2004 - 2014) was a digital journal from the Emmanuel Gospel Center’s Applied Research department. The Review featured regular articles, papers, and other resources to support urban pastors, leaders and community members in their efforts to serve their communities effectively. Ninety-five issues of The Review were published during its ten-year run from 2004 to 2014.

THEN AND NOW

When EGC’s Applied Research and Consulting department began a comprehensive reorganization in 2014, we discontinued publication until we were in a better position to produce new materials that would be even more effective. In 2016, when we launched a new website, the ERR archive was no longer available. Now we are working to repost some of the best from the past while we continue producing new resources addressing a wide range of urban issues.

LIST OF PUBLISHED ISSUES

2014

Issue No. 95 — March 2014 — Knowing Your Neighborhood: An Update of Boston’s South End Churches. (EGC reassessed the status of churches in our own neighborhood, Boston’s South End.)

Issue No. 94 — December 2013 - January 2014 — Understanding Boston’s Quiet Revival. (Steve Daman, Senior Writer, EGC, offers questions and discussion that lead toward a working definition and overview of “the Quiet Revival.”)

2013

Issue No. 93 — October-November 2013 — Mapping A Systemic Understanding of Homelessness for Effective Church Engagement. (EGC’s Starlight Ministries shares a homelessness system map for Boston and suggestions as to how churches can more effectively engage and impact homelessness in their communities.)

Issue No. 92 — September 2013 — “Why Cities Matter” and “Reaching for the New Jerusalem,” Books by Boston Area Authors. (Reviews of: Why Cities Matter: To God, the Culture, and the Church, by Stephen T. Um & Justin Buzzard, and Reaching for the New Jerusalem: A Biblical and Theological Framework for the City, edited by Seong Hyun Park, Aída Besançon Spencer, & William David Spencer.)

Issue No. 91 — July-August 2013 — Grove Hall Neighborhood Study. (Story and statistics on many facets of life in one Boston neighborhood.)

Issue No. 90 — June 2013 — Hidden Treasures of the Kingdom Uncovered. Celebrating Ministries to the Nations: A Manual for Organizing and Planning an Event in Your City. (Rev. Dr. Gregg Detwiler, Director of Intercultural Ministries, EGC, and Dr. Bianca Duemling, Assistant Director of Intercultural Ministries, describe a ministry event and the journey they pursued to pull it together.)

Issue No. 89 — May 2013 — 2013 Emmanuel Applied Research Award: Student Recipients. (Excerpts from the award paper, “Cambridge City-Wide Church Collaborative Cooperates to Meet Community Needs,” by Megan Footit, and abstracts from the three runners-up.)

Issue No. 88 — April 2013 — Perspectives on Boston Church Statistics: Is Boston Really Only 2% Evangelical? (Rudy Mitchell, Senior Researcher, EGC, evaluates the sources, accuracy, limitations, and weakness of some commonly used church statistics, especially with regard to their application in Boston.)

Issue No. 87 — March 2013 — Christian Engagement with Muslims in the United States. (Rev. Dr. Gregg Detwiler, Director of Intercultural Ministries at EGC, hosts a video conversation on Christian Engagement with Muslims in the U.S. Panelists: Dave Kimball, Minister-at-Large for Christian–Muslim Relations, EGC; Nathan Elmore, Program Coordinator & Consultant for Christian-Muslim Relations, Peace Catalyst International; and Paul Biswas, Pastor, International Community Church – Boston.)

Issue No. 86 — February 2013 — The Vital Signs of a Living System Ministry. (Dr. Douglas A. Hall, President of EGC and author of The Cat and the Toaster: Living System Ministry in a Technological Age, shares how Living System Ministry principles serve as vital signs which can guide our understanding and practice of leadership in urban ministry.)

2012

Issue No. 85 — December 2012–January 2013 — “Toward A More Adequate Mission Speak” and Other Resources by Ralph Kee. (An introduction to five booklets by Boston-based church planter and animator of the Greater Boston Church Planting Collaborative, Rev. Ralph Kee.)

Issue No. 84 — November 2012 — The Boston Education Collaborative’s Partnership with Boston Public Schools. (History and highlights of recent collaboration between EGC’s Boston Education Collaborative and the Boston Public Schools Faith-Based Partnerships in building church-school partnerships; and details on the BEC’s “Reflection and Learning Sessions” that provide support for Christian leaders working with students.)

Issue No. 83 — October 2012 — Churches in Boston’s Neighborhood of Mattapan. (Erik Nordbye, Research Associate of EGC, studied and analyzed data on 65 Christian churches in Boston’s diverse Mattapan neighborhood.)

Issue No. 82 — September 2012 — Christian Churches in Somerville, Mass. (A profile of 46 Christian churches in the city of Somerville, Mass.)

Issue No. 81 — August 2012 — Christian Churches in North Dorchester of Boston, Mass. (Hanno van der Bijl, Research Associate at EGC, studied the diverse and vital expressions of the church in the North Dorchester neighborhood of Boston. The report also documents the slow growth in the number of churches over the last 25 years.)

Issue No. 80 — July 2012 — Developing Safe Environments for Learning and Transformation. (Rev. Dr. Gregg Detwiler, Director of Intercultural Ministries, EGC, shares from his experience regarding “a model for personal and organizational transformation” while underscoring the importance of creating a safe environment.)

Issue No. 79 — June 2012 — Emmanuel Applied Research Award: Student Recipients. (The 2012 award paper, “Miriam’s House Ministries and The Melville Park Micro-enterprise Experiment,” by Jim Hartman, is presented in its entirety, and there are links to the executive summaries of the three runners up.)

Issue No. 78 — May 2012 — The Rise of the Global South: The Decline of Western Christendom and the Rise of Majority World Christianity, by Elijah J. F. Kim. (An introduction to the above named book by Elijah J. F. Kim, former Director of the Vitality Project, EGC. Dr. Kim says “the center of gravity of the Christian faith has shifted from the West to the non-West.”)

Issue No. 77 — April 2012 — The Black Church and Hip Hop Culture & Under One Steeple, Books by Boston Area Authors. (Reviews of The Black Church and Hip Hop Culture: Toward Bridging the Generational Divide, edited by Emmett G. Price III, and Under One Steeple: Multiple Congregations Sharing More Than Just Space, by Lorraine Cleaves Anderson, former pastoral of International Community Church in Allston.)

Issue No. 76 — March 2012 — Hartford Survey Project: Understanding Service Needs and Opportunities. (Jessica Sanderson of Urban Alliance shares about the purpose, process, analysis, findings and application of the Hartford Survey.)

Issue No. 75 — February 2012 — Behind the Scenes: Setting the Stage for Conversation about the Church in New England. (Video series from Brandt Gillespie of PrayTV and Dr. Roberto Miranda of Congregación León de Judá in Boston about the church in New England.)

Issue No. 74 — January 2012 — Shared Worship Space, an Urban Challenge and a Kingdom Opportunity. (Dr. Bianca Duemling, Assistant Director, Intercultural Ministries, EGC, outlines the challenges of churches sharing space.)

2011

Issue No. 73 — December 2011 — Let’s Do It! Multiplying Churches in Boston Now. (Rev. Ralph A. Kee, animator of the Greater Boston Church Planting Collaborative, connects first century practices with 21st century potentialities for Boston.)

Issue No. 72 — November 2011 — Crossing Beyond the Organization Threshold. (Dr. Douglas A. Hall, President, EGC, shares thoughts on the limitations of organization and the danger of having it become our ministry’s focus, and how we can use organization and technology appropriately to benefit a living system.)

Issue No. 71 — October 2011 — Human Trafficking: The Abolitionist Network. (Sarah Durfey, director, the Abolitionist Network, an emerging ministry of EGC, talks about how we can address human trafficking using a Living System Ministry approach.)

Issue No. 70 — September 2011 — Urban Ministry Training in Metro Boston. (Hanno van der Bijl, Research Associate, EGC, offers a brief introduction on urban ministry training in Metro Boston, the Urban Ministry Training Directory, a brief analysis, and a list of related resources.)

Issue No. 69 — August 2011 — The Diverse Leadership Project. (Dr. Bianca Duemling, Assistant Director, Intercultural Ministries, EGC, gives a brief overview of the project which seeks to better understand leadership development, styles, and priorities within various ethnic church communities. Includes interviews with six New England church leaders in five different ethnic contexts.)

Issue No. 68 — July 2011 — Metro Boston Collegiate Ministry Project: Focus Group/Learning Team Report. (The story of how the collaborative project began, initial group assumptions, and the “hexagonning” exercise that engaged 50 local leaders in a shared learning process to understand local college ministry.)

Issue No. 67 — June 2011 — Metro Boston Collegiate Ministry Project: Student Enrollment Report. (Who attends Boston’s colleges? This report examines student enrollment profiles for each of the 35 schools in Metro Boston.)

Issue No. 66 — May 2011 — Emmanuel Applied Research Award: Student Recipients. (The 2011 award paper, “Faith-Based Healthcare for the Underserved of Lawrence, MA: A Pilot Project,” by Stephen Ko, is presented in its entirety.)

Issue No. 65 — April 2011 — Boston Education Collaborative Church Survey Report. (How Boston-area churches are engaged in education, what areas of programming they are interested in further developing, and what resources are needed for them to become more involved in education.)

Issue No. 64 — March 2011 — Connecting the Disconnected: A Survey of Youth and Young Adults in Grove Hall. (An April, 2010, report on out-of-work and out-of-school young adults ages 16-24 in the Grove Hall area of Boston, and an interview with Ra’Shaun Nalls and Martin Booth of Project R.I.G.H.T., who share the story behind the study.)

Issue No. 63 — February 2011 — Youth Violence Systems Project Special Edition Review. (An overview of the community-based process that is at the heart of the Youth Violence Systems Project (YVSP), the YVSP strategy lab, the reason why we haven’t solved the gang violence problem, and what we are learning.)

Issue No. 62 — January 2011 — The Urban Apostolic Task. (In this issue, Rev. Ralph Kee, animator, Greater Boston Church Planting Collaborative, illuminates the vision, practical instruction, and urgency of an apostolic ministry that engages the entire church in “new-world building movements.”)

2010

Issue No. 59 — September/October 2010 — A New Kind of Learning: Contextualized Theological Education Models. (Dr. Alvin Padilla, Dean of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary’s Center for Urban Ministerial Education, Boston, considers the challenge theological schools have best serving the needs of diverse cultures in cities today.)

2008

Issue No. 41 — September/October 2008 — Urban Youth Mentoring. (Rudy Mitchell, Senior Researcher, summarizes his research findings regarding various practical aspects on mentoring youth in an urban context. Rudy’s research draws from both secular and faith-based sources regarding preparation, planning, recruiting, screening, training, matching, support, monitoring, closure, and evaluation of youth mentoring programs.)

More to come!

This is just a start. Stay tuned for more back issues listed and posted on this site. Or check out the Wayback Machine link below for another way to find back issues.

Learn More / Take Action

Questions? Is there something missing from our archives that you need? If you have questions or comments about the Emmanuel Research Review, don’t hesitate to be in touch. We would love to hear from you! 

Contact Us

Contact Us

Researchers may find additional back issues by searching the internet “Wayback Machine” here:

Perspectives on Boston Church Statistics: Is Greater Boston Really Only 2% Evangelical?

Resources for the urban pastor and community leader published by Emmanuel Gospel Center, Boston

Emmanuel Research Review reprint
Issue No. 88 — April 2013

Introduced by Brian Corcoran, Managing Editor, Emmanuel Research Review

What are the sources, accuracy, limitations, and weaknesses of some commonly used church statistics, especially with regard to their application in Boston? Wanting to encourage a more appropriate use of church statistics generally and in Boston, Rudy Mitchell, Senior Researcher at EGC, considers some of the more popular sources we encounter on the internet or in the news media, such as:

• The U. S. Religious Census and the Association of Religious Data Archives

• The Barna Research Group, and

• Gallup Polls on Religion.

Rudy offers some quick and practical advice for those who are tempted to grab-and-go with the numbers, as if they were “gospel” to their next sermon, strategic planning meeting, church planting support fundraising website, or denominational report. As convenient and convincing as statistics are, beware! They also can be easily misunderstood, misapplied, and generate misinformation.

True or false?

• “...only 2.1% of the people living in greater Boston attend evangelical churches.”

• “Tragically, only 2.5% of the 5.8 million people in greater Boston attend an evangelical church.”

• “Boston is...97.5% non-evangelical.”

• “There are fewer than 12 Biblical, Gospel Centered, Soul-Winning Churches” among the “7.6 million people” in Greater Boston.

The twitter-speed circulation of misinformation about Greater Boston being only 2% evangelical contributes to an inaccurate portrayal of what God has been doing in Greater Boston for decades by failing to recognize the ministry of many existing evangelical churches. Furthermore, it misdirects the development of new ministries and leaders emerging and arriving in Boston each month.

The good news is that the local church research conducted by the Emmanuel Gospel Center in Boston over the last 40 years has identified a larger, more vital, and more ethnically diverse Church than suggested by recent and broader church research projects. With the benefit of a comprehensive database and directory of the churches in Boston, developed over decades, EGC has the opportunity to compare and contrast our street-by-street Boston results with broader, less dense, bird’s-eye-view national research. With all this info in hand, we can illustrate how Boston’s evangelical churches have been significantly underreported in national surveys and suggest that they might also be underreported in some other major U.S. cities. Go ye therefore and research your city.

Furthermore, given the longevity of our research, we have been able to identify what we call Boston’s “Quiet Revival,” which is characterized by growth in the number of churches and church attendees, increased collaborative ministry, and multiple interrelated prayer movements in Boston since 1965. Currently there are approximately 700 Christian churches in the three cities of Boston, Brookline and Cambridge in the heart of Metro Boston, and these churches include folks from many tongues, tribes, and nations.

God is and has been doing more in Boston than most national survey techniques can identify.

Perspectives on Boston Church Statistics: Is Greater Boston Really Only 2% Evangelical?

by Rudy Mitchell, Senior Researcher, Emmanuel Gospel Center
Infographics by Jonathan Parker

What about the U. S. Religious Census and the Association of Religious Data Archives (ARDA)?

The 2010 U.S. Religious Census was collected by the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies (ASARB) and also presented by the Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA). The 2010 U.S. Religious Census provides data by county and by metropolitan area. The method used by this census is basically to compile the numbers of churches and adherents, denomination by denomination. The Boston city data is a part of Suffolk County, which also includes the cities of Chelsea, Winthrop and Revere.

Through our research at Emmanuel Gospel Center, we have identified over 500 Christian churches within the city limits of Boston. The other three cities in Suffolk County have at least an additional 54 churches. Therefore, through first-hand research, we have counted at least 554 Christian churches in Suffolk County. The U.S. Religious Census counted only 377 Christian churches.¹ Thus their count misses at least 177 churches. Because many new churches have been planted since our last count in 2010, we estimate that the U.S. Religious Census may have missed as many as 200 to 240 churches. In urban areas, the U.S. Religious Census / ARDA statistics are especially inaccurate because few African American, Hispanic, and other immigrant churches are counted, since many do not appear in the denomination lists used by the census. Other independent churches, some of which are very large, are often missed as well.

While the U.S. Religious Census perhaps needed to make some simple classifications of churches for the national compilations, these classifications are oversimplified and often misleading, especially at the local level.   In urban areas there are many evangelical churches within denominations classified as “Mainline.”  For example, in the city of Boston, the vast majority of American Baptist Churches (classified as Mainline) are evangelical.  Other so-called “Mainline” denominations have some evangelical churches in Boston as well.  Therefore, if one compiles the number of evangelical churches and adherents only from the list of churches classified as “Evangelical” by the U.S. Religious Census, one will end up with serious errors.

In addition, while the term “evangelical” is not typically used by African American churches, a majority of those churches would be considered “evangelical” in light of their beliefs and practices. This is also true of most Protestant Spanish-speaking and Haitian churches. In Suffolk County our research has identified at least 120 Spanish-speaking churches, and the vast majority of these are evangelical. Therefore, counts of evangelical churches and adherents must include these and additional immigrant evangelical church groups, if they are to be accurate.

Likewise, in urban areas like the city of Boston, most Black Protestant churches are missed by the U.S. Religious Census. The commentary notes that this is the case. Although the census attempted to include the eight largest historically African American denominations, it fell far short of gathering accurate numbers for even these denominations. “Based on the reported membership sizes included in the address lists, less than 50% of any group’s churches or members were able to be identified… For the African Methodist Episcopal Church, they found approximately the correct number of congregations, though the membership figures are only about one-third of their official reports. For other groups, the church counts range from 11% to 50% of reported numbers, and membership figures are from 7% to 28% of the reported amounts.”² In the case of Boston, one can see just how far off these numbers are. The Boston Church Directory research identifies 144 primarily African American churches, 19 Caribbean/West Indian churches, 9 African churches, and 34 Haitian churches in the city of Boston for a total of 206 Black churches. In contrast, the U.S. Religious Census identifies only 23 Black Protestant churches in all of Suffolk County. Thus the Census identifies (as Black Protestant) less than 11% of the Black churches that exist in the city. Given the size and importance of Black churches in urban areas, the U.S. Religious Census is completely inadequate in assessing religious participation in cities. Many of these churches belong to small denominations or are independent. While some Black churches are counted as part of evangelical and mainline denominations, they are not identified as Black churches.

At a time when hundreds of new evangelical churches have been planted in Boston and the greater Boston area, a number of church planters and media sources continue to lament the “cold, dark, sad and tragic” state of the Boston spiritual climate. While there is still a need for increased growth and vitality of many current churches, and a need for new church plants, these reports often give a one-sided and overly pessimistic view of the state of the Christian church in Boston.  It is common to hear that only 2.1 or 2.5% of greater Boston residents are evangelicals. This number is passed on from source to source without question, often morphing and attaching itself to various subgroups of the population. This percentage underestimates and diminishes the work of God which is going on in greater Boston.

One can easily glean a sad harvest of bad news about Boston on the internet. For example, a web-posted Boston church planting prospectus says, “What most people do not consider is the spiritual brokenness that fractures the city. They fail to realize that the spiritual climate is incalculably colder than the lowest lows of a Boston winter…most remain blind to the spiritual darkness that pervades the city. Tragically, only 2.5% of the 5.8 million people in greater Boston attend an evangelical church. Not surprisingly, there are very few healthy evangelical churches…”  Another church planter said, “According to one very thorough study, only 2.1% of the people living in greater Boston attend evangelical churches.” One church planter recalled God’s call, “God said, “I’m going to give you somewhere.’ I had no idea he was going to give me one of the hardest cities in the United States to go plant a church in…Boston is very intimidating. It’s 97.5% non-evangelical. For those non-math people, that’s 2.5 percent evangelical Christian. I didn’t even know there was a city like that before I started studying it.” While it may be more difficult to plant a new church in urban Boston than in suburban Texas or North Carolina, hundreds of successful churches have been planted in greater Boston in the last few decades.

In the city of Boston and surrounding towns, God has raised up new churches among many different groups of people. For example, in the city of Boston alone, more than 100 Spanish language churches have been planted. Many of these are not counted in typical “thorough” studies because they are either independent or do not belong to the denominations counted in these studies. In greater Boston there are even more Spanish speaking churches than in the city itself. Likewise the research often referenced does not count most of the Brazilian churches in greater Boston. The majority of the 420 Brazilian churches in eastern New England are located in Greater Boston. As many as 180 of these churches are nondenominational or directly affiliated with their denominations in Brazil, and therefore not counted in the ARDA data.³ Scores of African American, Haitian, African, Korean, Indonesian, and Chinese churches have also been planted in this area as well. Most, if not all of these immigrant churches would be considered evangelical. While some of these are small, quite a number of the churches have hundreds of active participants. Although one church planter claimed there was only one successful Anglo church plant, a little more research would have revealed that God has been growing many new and successful churches among this group, especially reaching Boston’s young adult population.

The source for some of the above statistics on greater Boston is based on the Association of Religion Data Archives information from 2000 which was also analyzed by the Church Planting Center at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.⁴ The Center’s report and PowerPoint presentation state that greater Boston is 2.5% evangelical.⁵ Since the ARDA data fails to include most of the Black Protestant, Hispanic, Haitian, Brazilian, and Asian churches under its evangelical category, it clearly underestimates the evangelical percentage. Even the slightly improved 2010 ARDA data only identifies 7,439 Black Protestants in Greater Boston.⁶ Just one black church (Jubilee Christian Church) of the city of Boston’s more than 200 black churches has about that number of members. In Greater Boston, there are many more black churches not counted in this study. If the city of Boston has about 100 largely uncounted evangelical Spanish-speaking churches, then Greater Boston (which includes Lawrence, Mass.) has at least double that number. This study also does not account for the many evangelical churches which in urban areas are affiliated with denominations classified by ARDA as “Mainline.” For example, more than 60 American Baptist churches in Greater Boston could be classified as evangelical rather than mainline. Numbers and percentages based on the ARDA data, therefore, fail to identify hundreds of evangelical churches in Greater Boston, and some of these are among the area’s largest churches.

What about the Barna Research Group?

The Barna Research Group has produced many reports on the beliefs and practices of Americans using phone surveys.  By drawing on 42,000 interviews completed over the last five to ten years, they have compiled statistics which they have sliced up into 96 cities ("urban media markets”). The most recent of these Barna Reports are called Cities 2013.  Barna also has produced parallel reports on 48 states.

The Cities 2013 report for the Boston area might give the impression to many people that it gives data primarily on the city of Boston or the city and its immediate suburbs. It is important to realize that this report covers an area extending from Nantucket to Laconia, New Hampshire, and eastern Vermont, as well as Worcester County, Massachusetts. The adult population of this media market area (DMA) in 2010 was 4,946,945 while the city of Boston’s adult population was 513,884 or only 10.4% of the total area.⁷ The total population of Barna’s “Boston” area was 6,322,433 compared to the total Boston city population of 617,594 (9.8% of the area). When using statistics from the Barna Cities 2013 report, one must keep in mind that the city of Boston is only a small part (~10%) of the area covered.

The Boston Cities 2013 Report is based on 429 interviews according to the Barna Research Group. Since the city of Boston represents 10.4% of the area’s adult population, one can estimate that about 45 interviews were done in Boston. Given the diversity of languages, racial groups, and nationalities in the city with its population of over a half-million adults, it is hard to imagine that this sample was large enough and representative enough to give a true picture of religious faith and practice in Boston. In addition, “while some interviews were conducted in Spanish, most were conducted in English. No interviewing was done in languages other than Spanish and English.”⁸ In fact, the Barna website says, “the vast majority of the interviews were completed in English.”⁹ Since the city of Boston has over 100,000 (17.5%) Hispanics¹⁰ with more than 100 churches, it is quite likely this group is underrepresented. This is just one of over 30 language groups which have churches in Boston. In the larger Barna study area (Boston DMA), there are 522,867 Hispanics and 344,157 Asians.¹¹ The area also includes a very large Brazilian population with over 400 Brazilian churches and the fourth largest population of Haitian Americans with dozens of thriving Haitian churches. Because these language groups were significantly less likely to be included in the interviews, and because many of these groups are among the most active in Christian faith and practice, the Boston area report underestimates Christian beliefs and involvement in the area and especially if one equates its conclusions with the city of Boston.

Table of total populations of the City of Boston and the DMA media market area. (The Boston DMA area is the one used by the Barna Research group.)

What about the Gallup Polls on religion?

The Gallup organization interviews large numbers of adults every year on a variety of topics including religion. Recent reports have not only examined national trends, but have also analyzed how religious the various states and metropolitan areas are. During 2012, Gallup completed more than 348,000 telephone interviews with American adults aged 18 years and over.¹² The Gallup organization uses what it calls the Gallup Religiousness Index when it states that one state or city is more religious than another. Specifically it is comparing the percentage of adults in the various states or cities who are classified as “very religious.” Two questions are used in the Gallup Religiousness Index:

(1) “Is religion an important part of your daily life? – yes, no, don’t know, refused”
(2) “How often do you attend church, synagogue or mosque? – at least once a week, almost every week, about once a month, seldom, never, don’t know, refused.”¹³

For someone to be classified as “very religious,” he or she would need to answer, “Yes, religion is an important part of my daily life,” and “I attend church, synagogue, or mosque at least once a week or almost every week.”

Nationally, 40% of American adults were found to be “very religious” on the basis of this standard. Significantly more Protestants (51%) were “very religious” than Catholics (43%).¹⁴ Religiousness generally increases with age, and so young adults are less religious than seniors.

The Gallup surveys have found that the New England states, including Massachusetts, have lower percentages of adults who are “very religious.” In fact, (1) Vermont (19%), (2) New Hampshire (23%), (3) Maine (24%), (4) Massachusetts (27%), and (5) Rhode Island (29%) are the five least religious states according to this measure.¹⁵ Several New England metropolitan areas also ranked low on the religiousness scale (Burlington, VT; Manchester-Nashua, NH; Portland, Maine). The Boston-Cambridge-Quincy metropolitan area ranked eighth least religious, with 25% of its metro area adults classified as “very religious.”¹⁶ Although many new churches have started in Boston and there is significant spiritual vitality in the city, two factors probably contribute to the low ranking. Boston has the largest percentage of young adults aged 20 to 34 years old of any major city in the country. This age group has lower percentages of “very religious” people than the older age groups. Also, Boston has a high percentage of Catholics (46.4%), and Catholics have a significantly lower percentage of “very religious” adherents.¹⁷ This factor also plays a role in the Massachusetts state ranking, since Massachusetts is now “the most heavily Catholic state in the union” (44.9%).¹⁸ One must keep in mind that the Gallup Religiousness Index is just one way of measuring how religious a person is, and it is based on self-reporting. The question about the importance of religion in one’s daily life can have many different meanings to different people. Other research has shown that the frequency of church attendance “does not predict or drive spiritual growth” for all groups of people.¹⁹

Some Quick Advice for  Boston Church Statistic Users

From these examples, you can see that it is important to evaluate critically the religious statistics you read in the media. In some cases these statistics may be incomplete, inaccurate, or have large margins of error. In looking at the data for a city, you also need to understand the geographic area the report is studying. This could range from the named city’s official city limits, to its county, metropolitan statistical area, or even to a media area covering several surrounding states. In reading religious statistics and comparisons, you also need to carefully understand definitions and categories that the research uses. A study may categorize and count Black churches or Evangelical churches in ways that fail to count many of those churches. When a survey says one state is more religious than another, you need to understand how the study defines “religious.” Using religious research statistics without careful evaluation and study can lead to misinterpretation and spreading misinformation.

_______________

¹ To accurately compare numbers, we compare only Christian churches from both our count and the U.S. Religious Census (which also included other religious groups such as Buddhists, etc.).

² “Appendix C / African American Church Bodies,” 2010 U. S. Religion Census: Religious Congregations & Membership Study, 675, www.USReligionCensus.org (accessed 28 March 2013).

³ Cairo Marques and Josimar Salum, “The Church among Brazilians in New England,” in New England’s Book of Acts, edited by Rudy Mitchell and Brian Corcoran (Boston: Emmanuel Gospel Center, 2007), II:15. See link here.

⁴ J. D. Payne, Renee Emerson, and Matthew Pierce, “From 35,000 to 15,000 Feet: Evangelicals in the United States and Canada,” Church Planting Center, Southern Baptist Theological Center, 2010.

⁵ Ibid.

⁶ Association of Religion Data Archives, “Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA, NH Metropolitan Statistical Area: Religious Traditions 2010,” www.thearda.com (accessed 5 May 2013).

⁷ U.S. Census 2010, Summary File 1, Table DP1 (Population 18 and over). The Barna interviews were only with adults.

⁸ Pam Jacob, “Barna Research Group,” Email. 2 April 2013.

⁹ Barna Research Group, “Survey Methodology: The Research Behind Cities,” Barna: Cities. Barna Cities & States Reports (accessed 8 April 2013).

¹⁰ U.S. Census 2010, Summary File 1, Table DP1.

¹¹ U. S. Census 2010, Summary File 1, Table DP1.

¹²Frank Newport, “Mississippi Maintains Hold as Most Religious U.S. State,” Gallup, 13 Feb. 2013 www.gallup.com (accessed 24 April 2013).

¹³ Ibid.

¹⁴ Ibid.

¹⁵ Ibid.

¹⁶ Ibid.

¹⁷ Catholic Hierarchy website, Boston Archdiocese, 2006, www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dbost (accessed 24 April 2013).

¹⁸ “Massachusetts Now Most Catholic State,” Pilot Catholic News, 11 May 2012, www.PilotCatholicNews.com (accessed 24 April 2012)

¹⁹ Greg L. Hawkins and Cally Parkinson, Move: What 1,000 Churches Reveal About Spiritual Growth (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2011), 18-19.

Shared Worship Space - An Urban Challenge and a Kingdom Opportunity

Resources for the urban pastor and community leader published by Emmanuel Gospel Center, Boston

Emmanuel Research Review reprint
Issue No. 74 — January 2012

Introduced by Brian Corcoran, Managing Editor, Emmanuel Research Review

One body, one building? Being neighbors is one thing, but when churches gather under the same roof, much deeper and intricate conditions emerge that remind us of the character, nature, calling and Kingdom purpose of the Church in a diverse urban environment. Dr. Bianca Duemling, Assistant Director of EGC’s Intercultural Ministries, outlines the challenges and opportunities that present themselves when multiple congregations consider sharing the buildings they use for worship.Employing a biblical, intercultural, and practical perspective, Bianca, along with local leaders and her research colleagues, “hope that this article enhances the understanding of the dynamics and challenges of sharing worship space and helps congregations to develop healthy and supportive relationships with each other to manifest the unity of the body of Christ across ethnic lines.”

Shared Worship Space - An Urban Challenge and a Kingdom Opportunity

by Bianca Duemling, with the research assistance of Cynthia Elias and Grace Han

Contents

• Factors Contributing to the Need of Shared Worship Space - an Introduction

• Biblical Perspectives on Sharing Worship Space

• Cultural Differences and Power Imbalance

• Aspects of Sharing Worship Space

• Advice from Sharing Worship Space - Experts

• Conclusion: Sharing Worship Space - a Long-Term Solution?

• Resources

Section One: Factors Contributing to the Need of Shared Worship Space - an Introduction

Sharing worship space is a reality in the urban context as space is very expensive and limited in availability. During the “white flight” in the 1960s, many congregations moved to the suburbs. Consequently, the number of majority-culture¹ churches in many North American cities declined. At the same time the “Quiet Revival”² unfolded and spiritual vitality flourished among immigrants in Boston. On every corner, new immigrant congregations emerged, often as house churches or in former storefront shops. Additionally, there is a new wave of young church planters who intentionally moved into the city to plant churches.³

As congregations grow and need more space, they look for alternatives. Some rent space in office buildings, hotels or schools⁴, but most of them reach out to congregations owning buildings to share space. Lack of space and lack of financial means makes it very difficult to find appropriate worship space in the city.

Facts about sharing space in Boston, Cambridge, and Brookline:⁵

• 32% of all congregations share worship space, in total 214 congregations

• 73.6 % of these congregations share with one other congregation

• 16.1% of these congregations share with two other congregations

• 10.3% of these congregations share with four or more congregation

• 82.8% of these congregations share with congregations of a different denomination

• 17.2% of these congregations with congregations of the same denomination

• 95% of these congregations share with congregation other than their own ethnic background.

Different Shared Worship Space Arrangements

The most common way of sharing worship space is having two or more independent congregations under one roof. One of them owns of the building and others are invited in. This article will mainly focus on their situation. However, there are other ways to share worship space. One example is the multi-congregational model. Different language groups are gathered under a joint leadership and board of elders. This includes a joint ownership of the building. Grace Fellowship in Nashua is such an example. Two of the Associate Pastors are also pastors of the Brazilian Church and the Russian/Ukrainian Church.⁶ Another rare arrangement is a joint ownership, when independent congregations build or buy a church building together.

Background and Structure of this Article

After Intercultural Ministries at EGC had been approached for advice on this matter several times, we started this research project to learn from the experience of different congregations about sharing worship space. Moreover, we found out that little has been written about sharing worship space well; even denominations have not addressed that issue or developed guidelines for their member congregations.⁷ In this article, I draw from inspiring conversations with many pastors.⁸ I thank all of them taking the time to honestly share their story and struggles with me!

The proximity of diverse congregations when sharing worship space offers a great potential to connect with each other across ethnic lines and witness the beauty of unity in diversity to the neighborhood. The reality, however, shows that sharing worship space is very challenging. It often causes much frustration for the congregations involved.

I hope that this article enhances the understanding of the dynamics and challenges of sharing worship space and helps congregations to develop healthy and supportive relationships with each other to manifest the unity of the body of Christ across ethnic lines. Making shared worship space work needs investment and commitment; there is no magic bullet to solve the challenges, and every situation differs from another.

First, I will unfold the reasons and importance for sharing worship space from a biblical perspective. Second, I will address cultural differences and how the power imbalance in our society impacts sharing worship space. After that, I will talk about how to share worship space and which different aspects need to be factored in. Also included will be advice from those I interviewed for those intending to share worship space. Moreover, in the appendix you will find some resources on sharing worship space.

Section Two: A Biblical Perspective on Sharing Worship Space

The Bible gives us many examples why sharing worship space is essential for the Body of Christ and closely connected with who Jesus wants his disciples and his Church to be. In this section I want to briefly address five biblical aspects⁹ to consider in this context which are interconnected. Some of the aspects might refer more to the situation of the owner of the church buildings, whereas others are important for both parties.

The Body of Christ – a Loving Relationship

The two most meaningful passages in this context are the image of the Body of Christ and the new commandment.

In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul describes the church as one interconnected Body of Christ. In verses 24-26, he especially mentions the nature of the relationship: “But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that parts should have equally concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.”

In line with this image is Jesus’ new commandment to love one another (John 13:34-35). Love is always more than words. Love implies consequences as described in 1 Corinthians 13. Love also means to humbly serve one another, as stated in Galatians 5:13.

Moreover, sharing housing, food, and economic resources is characteristic of the early Church, as described in Acts 4. The reference is often made to become like them again. Sharing worship space is a great opportunity to pick up the characteristics of the early church and set them into practice. Through that the unity in diversity of the Body of Christ is manifested.

Missional Impact

Another aspect is the missional impact of unity. Jesus emphasized in John 17:21 shortly before he died: “that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” There is a close connection between being one and the aspect that the “world may believe.” In my understanding, this verse states very clearly that unity is a key to renewal and revival. Moreover, sharing worship space, especially across ethnic lines, is a witness to the community that Jesus is relevant today. He bridges the gap of segregation and brings peace and reconciliation.

Opportunity of Spiritual Growth

Sharing worship space might not increase a church’s growth numerically, but surely can enhance spiritual growth and maturity. It is very easy to talk about a Christlike life from one's own comfort zone. But sharing worship space and stepping out of the comfort zone gives the opportunity to set the Gospel in practice. It shows how seriously a congregation lives the fruits of the spirit as mentioned in Galatians 5:22-23. Hence, sharing worship space is an opportunity of manifesting a deeper kind of unity that surpasses the state of being kind to each other.

The interaction with Christians from all over the world challenges the cultural elements of our Christian practices and leads the focus on the essential Christian faith. Mutual mentoring and encouragement as well as learning from each other's strength help us to mature in Christ. It is an excellent practice to embrace our poverty.¹⁰

Additionally, understanding of the global Kingdom of God increases, as well as affection for other parts of the world, through the immigrant group sharing space. Thus, leaders and members can develop intercultural competency, which is a much needed skill in our diversifying society.

Good Stewardship

In the parable of the talents, God has entrusted men with bags of gold to use wisely for the Kingdom of God (Matthew 25:14-30). In 1 Peter 4:10 it is even more explicitly expressed that “each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others, as faithful stewards of God’s grace in its various forms.” A church building, for example, can be seen as such a bag of gold that should be used wisely for the sake of people’s life and the building of the Kingdom of God.

Growing the Kingdom of God

One of the great challenges of the Body of Christ is to develop a Kingdom perspective beyond the walls of a congregation’s own activities. In assisting church planting through sharing worship space or incorporating an immigrant congregation as a part of one's own mission, we are involved in advancing the Kingdom of God.

Church planting and the growth of a congregation is something that God is doing by using us. Nurturing vitality through sharing space means aligning with God’s plan.

These Scripture passages and many more indicate that sharing worship space is not just a business deal between two independent parties, but also an undertaking within the one Body of Christ. The source of consideration should be the advancement of the Kingdom of God. If growth occurs because a congregation has opened their space for a church plant, it is as important as if the same congregation would add new believers to their flock. In either case it is for the advancement of the Kingdom of God and the Glory to God.

Congregations need to shift their mental models. If one congregation is not able to send out church planters, they can still be involved in church planting by sharing worship space. It needs to be understood that helping other congregations fulfill their calling is a valid Kingdom mission and ministry.

New mental models generate different questions. It is not to ask: “How do I (or does my congregation) get the job done?”, but: “How does the job get done?” — no matter how God uses me and my congregation.¹¹

Having emphasized the necessity and opportunity of sharing worship space, I also want to clarify that it might be not possible for every congregation.

Section Three: Cultural Differences and Power Imbalance

As I mentioned above, more than 95% of all the congregations that are sharing worship space do share with a congregation of another ethnic background. There is always a potential of conflict in every inter-congregational interaction, but its potential increases in a crosscultural setting. Cultural misunderstandings and conflicts are inevitable in the context of intercultural encounter. Everyone needs to engage in the process of intercultural learning to increase intercultural competency. It is crucial to realize and accept that in addition to our fallen human condition, our behavior is further impacted by cultural bias. Different approaches to cleanliness, time and property do not exist to intentionally try to cause problems for the other congregation, but are part of cultural differences. Therefore, there is a need to learn about patterns of foreign cultures without judging them, as well as identifying one's own cultural standards and estimating its impact on someone from a different culture. In the context of Living System Ministries at EGC we talk about primary and secondary culture as one way of better understand cultural differences. Most immigrants from the Southern hemisphere are relational or primary cultures, whereas Western cultures can be described as secondary cultures. Here are some of the contrasts:¹²

The Bible gives us many examples why sharing worship space is essential for the Body of Christ and closely connected with who Jesus wants his disciples and his Church to be. In this section I want to briefly address five biblical aspects¹³ to consider in this context which are interconnected. Some of the aspects might refer more to the situation of the owner of the church buildings, whereas others are important for both parties.

These contrasts create challenges. It is a learning process to find ways how to work best together and how to profit from each other’s strength.

I cannot go into more details about cultural differences, but two helpful resources to explore the impact of cultural differences more deeply are: Foreign to Familiar: A Guide to Understanding Hot- and Cold-Climate Cultures from Sarah A. Lanier and Many Colors: Cultural Intelligence for a Changing Church from Soong-Chan Rah.

Closely related to cultural challenges is the dynamic of majority-minority relations.¹³ Sharing worship space is embedded in the power imbalance, systemic discrimination and racism of our society, which in the context of the U.S. is rooted in the colonization of the Native Americans, the history of slavery and the lack of equal opportunities for immigrants. There is a lot of mistrust and broken relationships between the members of majority and minority culture. This historical baggage deeply influences the relationships between congregations sharing space. It is especially sensitive, as the owners of the church buildings mostly belong to the majority culture. The power imbalance might not be seen at first glance, but it subtly penetrates the atmosphere.

Section Four: Aspects of Sharing Worship Space

Sharing worship space is a very complex issue containing many challenges. Before dealing with practical details, our mental models need to be identified and some important questions are to be asked:

• What is the motive to share worship space?

• Which attitude/mental model is driving the decision?

During my research I observed that pastors who generally had good relationships, emphasized that the financial aspect should never be the driving motive. In some cases a financial contribution is necessary for sharing space to maintain the building. Even so, others admit that when counting all the costs there is no financial net gain. One way to not allow the financial aspect to dominate the process is to intentionally refrain from creating a landlord-tenant relationship, as the host congregation sets the tone of the shared worship space experience.

One way of doing that is the choice of language:

• Am I sharing or renting worship space?

• Is it a business relationship or among brothers and sisters?

Although the host pastor sets the tone, the guest congregation carries the same responsibility to make it work and not take advantage of their hospitality.

Sharing space is a learning process for everyone. The involved congregations need to be educated and develop a shared vision that the overall purpose is the Kingdom of God and not where the cups are, which is nevertheless important!

In my observation, a business mentality, where the financial aspects is the only or driving motive, often becomes counterproductive. Unresolved misunderstandings and cultural conflicts can easily turn into destructive relationships and damage the Body of Christ.

Therefore, the aim of this section is to help you consider various elements of sharing worship space. I will firstly address the importance of relationships, then the possible challenges. After that I deal with aspects of the practical arrangements and ideas of intercultural encounters and joint events.

Relationship is everything

Sharing worship space has similar aspects to living in community. In order to live well together it is good to know each other’s stories, vision and passion, hopes and challenges. Building relationships is a timely investment and is not done with one meeting to discuss practical details. However, over a long run the initial investment to start on good terms is worth its time as it helps to navigate through challenges. Therefore, transparent relationships, good communication, mutual respect and support, and responsiveness to each other needs are crucial.

One way to build relationships is regular meetings for prayer and fellowship between the pastors or point persons. The research revealed that most pastors meet only if conflicts arise. It is not a good basis for relationships to only see each other when something goes wrong.

Especially if sharing with several congregations, a quarterly inter-church council that includes all groups sharing a facility, has proven very beneficial.

Be Prepared for Challenges

Despite good relationships challenges arise from time to time. As mentioned in section three, they are closely connected to cultural differences. In this section I list some of the challenges that frequently appear, so that everyone can be prepared for them and think ahead of measures to avoid conflicts.

Different Worship Styles and Sound Levels. Traditional worship styles often differ in their instruments and sound level from more contemporary styles. Different cultural and denominational backgrounds include crying out loud to God, weeping, dancing, and clapping is an integral component of worship. This can create a challenge if both congregations are in the building at the same time or if the building is close to neighbors, who complain about the sound level.

Growing Congregations. Congregations can grow numerically at different paces. New immigrant churches have a tendency to be more vital and grow faster. Consequently, they need more space and have more frequent meeting times. This growth dynamic can be seen as a threat to the host congregation. Feelings that the other congregation is taking over can develop as members of the guest congregation are increasingly present in the facility.

Historical and Personal Baggage. Every person and every congregation brings their baggage to the table, such as bad experiences with former shared worship space arrangement, suspicion, or discrimination experiences.

Language Barriers. The lack of English abilities of one party creates challenges in clearly communicating expectations and navigating constructively through conflicts.

Communication. Miscommunication is the root of many conflicts. Although in the Western culture, emails are often seen as an appropriate way to communicate, in many oral cultures this is not always the case. Unanswered emails are not necessarily a sign of disinterest, but an unsuitable way to start a conversation. In such cases, a telephone call or a face-to-face meeting is much more efficient. Developing clear and healthy communication patterns can be a major step in building stable relationships.

Different standards related to time. There are two challenges relating the issue of time. The first one is the different cultural understanding of starting or ending on time. The second one is the perceived "tension" between the Holy Spirit and time. In many Pentecostal congregations, there is a deep expectation that the Holy Spirit moves during the service. So the question arises, whether time restriction is a valid reason to stop the moving of the Holy Spirit?

Different standards related to cleanliness. In every home or shared living situation the discussion about cleanliness occurs; it is the same within congregations. People have a different need for cleanliness to feel comfortable and have also different standards for what is considered a clean floor or clean kitchen.

Food. Food is one of the most tangible cultural expressions. In some congregations shared meals are an integral component of the worship and fellowship experience. However, people have a different comfort level regarding the smell of food in a church building.

Supervision of Children. Not every congregation has Sunday school for children during the service. Children can become disinterested from their parent’s worship service and wander off to other areas in the building. Unsupervised children can not only hurt themselves but also severely damage the building, its walls and equipment.

Building issues. A church building is a complex issue. The focus should always be on the people, but as good stewards it is understood to use physical resources careful that they last as long as possible.¹⁴ This includes being sure that everything is locked, the lights are out, and the heat/air conditioning use is not messed up. It may cost the host congregation hundreds and thousands of dollars if these issues have not been taken care of thoroughly. This needs to be understood by those using the facilities.

Unauthorized use of supplies and equipment. It happens again and again, that a congregation uses supplies or equipment of the other congregation. Not necessarily to take advantage of the other, but because they forgot something or run out of it.

Violation of the agreement. The basis of shared worship space arrangements is an agreement how and when to use the space. There is always a chance that this agreement is violated or the agreed upon financial contribution is not made.

Commitment to the neighborhood. In many cases, the host congregation feels a commitment to their neighborhood and wants to reach and serve their community. Thus, they try not to upset the community through poor parking or high sound levels. The focus of the guest congregations often is a specific target group and not the community. This may be especially true, if they have no office space, come just for the worship service from all over the city, and see sharing worship space only as a short term option.

My intention to list these challenges is not to overwhelm the reader. If the question arises why to share worship space in the first place, please read section two again!

Being aware of the challenges can prevent the shared worship space experience to become counterproductive. The obvious question is, how to avoid or to address these challenges. As I said before, there is no simple answer or magic bullet to it. Some of the challenges might be solved more easily, such as paying a cleaner together or having a translator for conversations. But most of these challenges mean a lot of work and need the right attitude and willingness to make it work. The congregations need to be educated and involved. Conflicts need to be addressed with grace and love. Honesty and transparency are key in the communication. Good relationships help to navigate through these challenges.

Practical Arrangements

So far I have addressed the reasons to share worship space and its challenges, but what practical arrangements need to be set in place?

Every situation is different, therefore shared worship arrangements differ from each other. In this section I will present different ways to deal with the practical arrangements, as suggested by the congregations we interviewed.

Agreement. Shared worship space arrangements are mainly crosscultural, thus often they are encounters between oral or written cultures that have different ways to come to an agreement. In any negotiation this has to be taken into account. As mentioned above, the attitude regarding sharing worship space is expressed through language, hence it is recommended not to use business language such as “renting” or “contract.” In most cases it is helpful to have the arrangement in a written form as a basis that can be revisited when there are misunderstandings. The “agreement” or “covenant” should be developed together and only contain the most basic information. Avoid creating a “catalog of rules,” which implies distrust, reduces mental flexibility, and is less relational. Working together towards an agreement gives a chance to clearly communicate each other’s expectations. A common practice is to renew the agreement every year and see it as an opportunity to reflect on the experiences and adapt changes if necessary.

I also strongly suggest getting to know each other before you talk about details and share the stories of the congregations and the personal journeys in ministry.

Basic Elements of an agreement:

• Contact details of pastor or point person

• Description of use (time and space)

• Shared cost

• Condition of use

• Basic building rules

• Insurance

• Supervision of Children

• Use of kitchen

• Cleaning instructions

• Termination procedure

Sharing of expenses. There are different ways of sharing expenses. Some congregations ask for a contribution for a monthly use, a hourly use or per session. In some cases, the amount of contribution differs with the size of the congregation.

Many congregations see the building as a blessing, however, the maintenance, especially of old buildings, can turn into a huge financial burden. The guest congregation needs to understand that maintenance and repair costs tens of thousands of dollars a year and it is not at all inappropriate to be asked for a contribution.

Insurance. No matter whether there is a written or oral agreement, insurance is a very important issue. Accidents always can happen and things break all the time. Without insurance coverage small things can become an unbearable financial burden. Often each congregation is asked to have their own insurance. The host church should receive a copy of the insurance policy. The insurance company “Church Mutual” (www.churchmutual.com) has been recommended. It has a special “tenant” insurance.

Organizational issues. There are three basic organizational issues: (1) time and space, (2) cleaning, and (3) storage space, which need to be addressed and clear to everyone.

Time and Space. First, each congregation has defined times and rooms they can use. A magnetic calendar in the hallway, for example, is a great way to provide transparency. Each congregation has a color and can reserve the time and space they need additional to the fixed service times. The first congregation, who reserves it, can use it. This procedure is well tested by the International Community Church.

Another possibility to communicate this clearly is to use a joint Google calendar, where people can book space depending on availability. It is important that pastors have agreed on how to reserve the facilities and that the use of space is communicated ahead of time. Nothing is more frustrating for both congregations to come to the church building and find that the space is already used. Good communication on that issue is crucial. Moreover, there should always be enough time for smooth transition, clean up and set up between two events.

Cleaning. Second, as cleanliness is a sensitive issue, it should be agreed on how the congregations have to leave the space. If the chairs need to be stacked up a specific ways it should be kept easy and be explained clearly. It is helpful to have a plan in each room. If this is a recurring source of conflict, one way to solve this issue is to hire a custodian or a cleaner together.

Storage Space. Thirdly, each congregation has different equipment and material for their gatherings, therefore it is important to provide enough clearly labeled storage space for each congregation. There are different opinions on whether this space should be lockable, as, ideally, the basis for the relationship is trust.

Other aspects to consider

Sharing other resources. Depending on the shared space situation even more resources than the facilities could be shared, such as a copy machine, Internet/WiFi, audio/visual equipment or even human resources, such as an accountant or church administrator.

Billboards/Signs. It was recommended that groups have a sign on the outside of the church building that indicates everyone who is sharing the facilities. This is not only helpful for members to find the space, but also reflects a certain community among the congregations.

Shared Worship Space arrangement on each other’s website. Another way to demonstrate a commitment to recognize and care for each other’s congregation is to display the other congregations on the website, as, for example, Ruggles Baptist Church does.¹⁵

Intercultural Encounter and Joint Events

Sharing worship space is more than a functional relationship, as it reflects the one Body of Christ. Joint events are a visible expression that Jesus Christ connects people across cultural lines.

Although it has been emphasized, especially by the church building owner, that sharing worship space is building the Kingdom of God, only a few congregations intentionally are seeking to build personal relationships with members of other congregations. The interaction is often reduced to the pastors or one joint service a year if at all.

The reasons are lack of time or the lack of enough space to hold joint events. Some pastors of the guest congregations indicated that they think any joint activity needs to be initiated by the host congregations.

The intentions to do something together are there, but there is no driving force, no one who takes it on and starts to organize it; therefore, nothing is happening. Whenever the time was invested and joint services or picnics took place, everyone remembered it as beneficial and a learning experience.

However, generally there is little understanding for the importance and opportunities to build personal relationships across congregations, especially across cultural lines.

Besides the fact that it is personally and spiritually beneficial to develop relationships across cultural lines, the opportunity of outreach is immensely overlooked. A multicultural experience which reflects the love of Christ is very attractive, especially for young, urban non-Christians, as diversity reflects their life situation.

The following suggestions for joint events were provided by the congregation we interviewed.

Guiding principles of joint worship services:

• People from each congregation are involved in preparation

• Short sermons in each languages so that everyone has to sit through a ten-minute devotion in another language

• Joint worship team with songs in different languages

• Short interview/testimonies of one person of each congregation

• Fellowship with shared meal

Other possible joint events:

• Vacation Bible School

• Soccer games

• Youth events

• Marriage seminars

• Community outreach events

• Building cleaning and repair event

• Yard sale for community outreach and to support the ministries

Section Five: Advice from Sharing Worship Space - Experts

As mentioned earlier, there is no magic bullet for sharing worship space and it requires significant time and effort. The pastors have been asked in the interviews to give some advice for people who are considering sharing space. In this section, I will share their insights. As the host and guest congregations have different perspectives and emotions regarding sharing worship space, I will address them in two sections.

Advice from host congregation to host congregation:

• Be clear on the conditions and expectations

• Count the cost before sharing your building with another congregation and then make decision

• Be willing to adapt to change that will come

• If money is your only motive, do not share worship space; it can become counterproductive

• Perceive sharing worship space as a way to serve

• Be patient and flexible

• It is sometimes easier to share among three or more churches because it reduces the potential of an "us and them" mentality developing

• While interviewing a pastor, who needs worship space discern whether you can relate interpersonally to each other.

Advice from guest congregation to guest congregation:

• Be proactive with conflicts and show your servant attitude

• Take good care of the children and the equipment

• Make sure that the members of your congregation know what you have agreed on with the owner

• Be responsible, respectful, responsive, and thankful

• Pray for the host congregation as part of your ministry; this enables the members to value the space and helps them to take good care of it

• Being supportive of each other

• Seek the Lord on where you should be and who you should be with

• Don't share worship space with a congregation who speaks the same language to prevent membership competition

Section Six: Conclusion: Sharing Worship Space – a Long-Term Solution?

Given all the reasons to share worship space such as difficult economic times, lack of human, physical, and financial resources, I wonder why more congregations do not consider sharing worship space as a long-term solution.

I have observed that churches desire their own buildings, even though they have good relationships to the host congregations. Sometimes it is the need for more space, more flexibility, or the dislike of service times in the afternoon. For only two churches we talked to, sharing worship space is a long-term option because one is committed to the specific neighborhood and the other values the shared worship arrangement, as it gives the possibility to spend its few resources on ministry and not a building.

Cultural and personal misunderstandings will occur, therefore a long-term commitment to sharing worship space is also a commitment to invest in relationships, reconcile conflicts, and not avoid difficult conversations.

It is time to think differently about sharing worship space and develop creative and innovative approaches that build the Kingdom of God, witness a loving body of Christ, serve the neighborhoods, enhance intercultural learning, and reflect the nature of the Kingdom of God as written in Revelation 7:9:

“there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language standing before the throne and before the Lamb.”

Intercultural Ministries of EGC offers consulting and training to assist congregations in navigating through cultural challenges. If you are interested in receiving more information, contact Gregg Detwiler at gdetwiler [at] egc.org .

Footnotes

¹ In this article the term “majority culture” refers to the U.S. society in general and not to the majority or minority in a given community or congregation. “Majority culture” is shaped by language, religious practice, values, and social structure of people of predominantly Euro-American descent.

² See Hall, Douglas, Judy Hall, and Steve Daman. 2010. The Cat and the Toaster: Living System Ministry in a Technological Age. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock., p. xiii-xv; and Doug Hall: “What is the Quiet Revival & Why is it Important?” in New England’s Book of Acts (2007). The growth of immigrant churches is also documented in New England’s Book of Acts.

³ This is an observation Rev. Ralph Kee made in his work as the animator of the Greater Boston Church Planting Collaborative (https://www.egc.org/church-planting/).

⁴ However, that is not possible everywhere anymore. On December 5, 2011, the Supreme Court rejects worship at public school appeal for NYC; consequently more than 60 churches in NYC need a different space to worship starting February 12, 2012 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/05/us-usa-religion-schools-idUSTRE7B41ML20111205 - accessed 01/10/2012).

⁵ All the data is obtained from EGC’s Boston Church Directory (http://egcboston.force.com/bcd - accessed June 2011).

⁶ http://gatecitychurch.org/about/leadership-team/ (name changed, new web site, link updated 04/11/2017).

⁷ We have contacted the headquarters of the main denominations to ask about guidelines regarding shared worship space. However, no practical guidelines have been developed. Two denominations had some sort of guidelines. The Church of the Nazarene mentioned the process of developing multi-congregational churches under 100.1 in their Manual (http://nazarene.org/files/docs/Manual2009-2013.pdf, p. 63 – accessed 01/23/2012). The Presbyterian Church USA has only guidelines regarding sharing space with another religion: (www.pcusa.org/resource/sharing-building-space-group-another-religion/ - accessed 01/23/2012).

⁸ Between July and December 2011, we conducted 15 formal interviews with six pastors whose congregations own the church building, eight pastors whose congregations worship in someone else’s church building worship space and with a representative of one parachurch organization, who has churches worshiping in their facilities. Moreover, I had many informal conversations about shared worship space.

⁹ All Scripture Quotations are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version, published by Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI.

¹⁰ See Hall, The Cat & the Toaster. p. 116ff.

¹¹ Ibid. p. 180-183.

¹² Ibid. p. 19ff.

¹³ In this article, the term “majority-minority relations” refers to the U.S. society and its structure in general and not to the majority or minority in a given community or congregation.

¹⁴ This issue was addressed in November 2010 through a workshop. Subsequently, the report Re-thinking the Way We Think about Church Buildings was published by EGC in the Emmanuel Research Review, Issue 61, Dec. 2010. Contact EGC to request a copy, or search here: https://www.egc.org/blog/emmanuel-research-review.

¹⁵ http://www.rugglesbaptistchurch.org/– accessed 01/23/2012.

Resources:

• Anderson, Lorraine: Under One Steeple:  Multiple Congregations Sharing More Than Just Space. House of Prisca and Aquila Series. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2012.

• Behnken, Ken. Together in Mission: Sharing Facilities With Another Culture Group. Irvine, CA: Center for United States Missions, 2008.

• Lanier, Sarah A. Foreign to Familiar. A Guide to Understanding Hot- and Cold-Climate Cultures. Hagerstown, MD: McDougal Publishing, 2000.

• Rah, Soong-Chan. Many Colors: Cultural Intelligence for a Changing Church. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2010.

• The Christianity Today article “Space Frontiers” features three churches that are pioneering new ways to use facilities for the gospel. It inspires one to think a little more out of the box. www.christianitytoday.com/le/2009/fall/spacefrontiers.html - accessed 01/23/2012.

Author

Dr. Bianca Duemling served as the Assistant Director of Intercultural Ministries at Emmanuel Gospel Center (Boston, MA) since 2010. Raised in Germany, Bianca earned her degree in European Community Education Studies as a licensed social worker in Koblenz, and a Master of Arts in Intercultural Work and Conflict Management in Berlin. She completed her Ph.D. at the University of Heidelberg, studying emerging immigrant churches in Germany and their relationship with mainline churches. She is a founding member of the Forum Intercultural Relations of Together for Berlin and the Foundation Himmelsfels, where she served as the project coordinator for an intercultural reconciliation project.