Why Are We Not Growing?

HOME

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE

I have served as a pastor and Officer in The Salvation Army for twenty years. In that time my wife and I have served in eleven Corps/Churches for an average of two years per Corps. In that time we have attended many Salvation Army seminars and outside conferences that have dealt with Church growth. Like many Officers we have tried to implement many of the lessons we have learned, but generally have not been in one location long enough to implement these changes.

Today, the issue of growth is still with us, even though now the focus has slowly switched from Church growth to Church health. The theory being that there will be growth when we are healthy. Still, it will take time for the principles to be implemented.

The Salvation Army however, is more then just a church, we are known as a religious nonprofit agency that is active in social services. Much of our support and finances does not come from internal membership but from the public. Due to our dual role, we sometimes believe it makes our situation different from the average church. Some of these variables contribute to our 'smallness' as a church.

As pastors of small churches, many feel like failures because they can't grow a larger congregation. When we are surrounded by large churches and Mega-churches, this increases our low morale and low self-esteem. Yet John Wimber, a church Growth Consultant, says there are less then five hundred churches in the United States that have an average of one thousand or more on a Sunday and the average church in the United States has fewer then two-hundred members, with an average morning worship attendance around sixty-five. Twenty percent of all congregations average between twenty and forty in the morning worship service. ⁽¹⁾ These are not terribly encouraging numbers, but it ought to encourage us in that we are not alone. Our low attendances are not because we are The Salvation Army, the mission for the poor, but we are very much like other churches with their struggles. .

Whether we are a small Salvation Army congregation or another church, we should want to grow, be healthy and reach the world for Jesus Christ. In this paper, I will look at some variables that contribute to our poor "health" and low numbers and hopefully suggest ways we can turn things around and flourish.

Major Kjell Steinsland, Des Plaines, IL (August 2001)

INTRODUCTION

This paper addresses my belief that Salvation Army Corps ⁽²⁾ are not growing due to several variables. These variables include frequent changes in Officers ⁽³⁾, low morale, our theology and worship style, poor locations and buildings, changing demographics, and poor Corps finances. I believe these contribute to our poor health and are barriers to growth.

As a member of The Salvation Army for more than forty years (twenty as an Officer) I have had the opportunity to serve in more than eleven Corps around the Midwest region of the United States. This region is called the Central Territory ⁽⁴⁾ of The Salvation Army, which has ten Divisions. Many of the needs and problems have been consistent in these Corps even though it represents four different Divisions.

In this paper, I plan to demonstrate that frequent changes in Officers keep many Corps from growing. Last year alone we experienced changes in half of our units. Part of the problem according to our administration is that half of the moves are due to requests by the Officers themselves. The problem is our organizational culture has encouraged our Field Officers and Divisional Officers ⁽⁵⁾ to begin looking over their shoulders and expect to move after three or four years. Many Church growth experts point out that it takes at least four years before the foundation is set and real growth can begin. With moves frequently happening after three years, the foundation is shaking and undeveloped. This means with another change in Officers the foundation must be redeveloped.

Many Officers and Soldiers ⁽⁶⁾ suffer from low morale due to lack of growth and even declining attendances. This is actually closely related to the first problem of frequent moves. However, there are some Corps that are prone to frequent moves, and getting inexperienced Officers. Low morale can keep a Corps from growing and can allow it to spiral downward. Whether it is due to a sense of hopelessness or a lack of vision, these are things that must be turned around before the Corps will grow.

I want to look at how our worship style and theology concerning the sacraments may cause us to lose converts. We are non-sacramental, we do not practice communion or baptism therefore many converts do not remain with us. When it comes to attracting christians who are looking for a new church, they may find the practice of the sacraments essential to their faith, so they wind up looking elsewhere. My concern is that our conservative worship styles may not attract new people.

I want to look at how our buildings and location affect our lack of growth. In the old Salvation Army formula, we always tried to make sure we were between the people we serve in social services and the donors that help us finance the work. This may make it more difficult for us to attract converts who may feel threatened by our location. Many of our locations are in run down areas and are difficult to get to and transportation needs could hinder people from getting to us on Sunday. With the formula of being in between the clients and the donors, it may affect who will worship in our chapels.

I believe that the our Corps' demographics show that our Corps are low-income congregations and are less likely to show significant growth, while Corps that have middle class congregations are more likely to grow. These differences may be due to the sociological changes over time and the differences between Corps.

I also believe that Corps finances (poor finances) are a barrier to Corps growth. Having spent thirteen years in the Heartland Division (Central Illinois and Eastern Iowa), we were constantly being reminded that our Corps and Division was in debt. At our Officers Councils and business meetings, most of the time was spent emphasizing finances, fund-raising, budgeting, etc. This constant emphasis left little energy or time for evangelism, disciplining and Corps growth.

I plan to survey the participants of the Small Corps Revitalization Program to test these hypothesis. The sixteen Corps have less then twenty-five in attendance on Sunday morning, and I will attempt to determine the relationship between these variables and their lack of growth. This group was part of a program called the Small Corps Revitalization Program. This survey was sent to the Corps Officers and Soldiers who were part of the sixteen Corps and those who moved to these Corps after the program was put together.

At the conclusion of this paper, I hope to share my conclusions and share ways to promote growth and health in Salvation Army congregations.

PART ONE: SURVEYING THE SMALL CORPS REVITALIZATION PROGRAM

In this section of the paper I will take a look at the sixteen Corps that were participants in a program called "Small Corps Revitalization Program." These Corps along with eight Divisional Headquarters and Territorial Headquarters started out cooperating in an effort to create a program that would help stimulate growth in our smallest Corps by providing training, resources and funding.

The sixteen Corps that participated are:

• Ann Arbor, MI;
• Chicago Heights, IL;
• Connersville, IN;
• El Dorado, KS;
• Fort Dodge, IA;
• Jacksonville, IL;
• Marinette, WI;
• Marquette, MI;
• Newton, IA;
• Pittsburg, KS;
• Springfield, Il:
• St. Charles, MO;
• Terre Haute, IN;
• Virginia, MN;
• Waukegan, IL; and
• Ypsilanti, MI.

Each of these Corps had Officers and Soldiers that participated in the program, and represented the current leadership of their Corps.

In the next section, I will discuss the survey that I put together that would be mailed to the participating Officers and Soldiers. My hope is the survey would help document that these variables are obstacles to growth in Salvation Army Corps.

Chapter One: The Study Group: Corps Group Revitalization

The Small Corps Revitalization Committee under the direction of Major John Morrison, the Territorial Corps Growth Secretary, worked for a year to establish criteria for the seminar and what we would like to see happen through this seminar. This came out of a concern by administration that we had so many Corps that had small attendance and memberships and that we need to find a way to turn things around.

The Committee consisted of eight Officers (including myself) and eight Soldiers from a variety of Corps, some small and some large, some from small towns, and some from larger cities. Our objective was to get commitments from Territorial Headquarters, Divisional Headquarters, the Officers and the Corps to stay in place for three to five years. We felt it was important to allow the Corps to focus on the most important programs and allow them to determine what those will be. Headquarters would allow the Corps time to initiate a plan for growth. That would mean they would not pressure the Corps to do a teen program when there were no teens, no leaders, no money, etc.

Following the work of the Committee, Major John Morrison presented the program to the Territorial Executive Committee ⁽⁷⁾, and following some modifications the plan received approval. One exception was that Territorial Headquarters would not require the Divisions to participate if they didn't want to. Since the program would be voluntary participation by the Divisions, this led to only eight of the ten Divisions participating in the program and the seminar.

Once the invitations to participate in the Small Corps Revitalization program were sent out to the Divisional Headquarters and the Corps, we had sixteen Corps participate in the initial meeting at Territorial Headquarters.

In order to participate a Corps must send at least one Corps Officer and at least one Corps leader. Each Corps' Officers and Soldiers must commit to study and understand the Small Corps Revitalization Process and how it might impact their Corps and be willing to support the process. They must commit to a consistent Corps and personal prayer life recognizing that with prayer anything is possible, without prayer we labor in vain. They would send one Officer and one or more lay delegates to the Small Corps Revitalization Seminar on April 18-20, 1997. They would participate fully in the process for the three to five year period, and the Officer would not request a move during this period.

While they were at the Seminar they worked together to develop a plan for Corps Revitalization and complete it upon returning home from the seminar. They would make needed sacrifices to implement the plan and carry it through, and they would cooperate fully in the follow up process to the seminar.

They must have a willingness to accept additional leadership training and disciplining during the process. They must be willing to adjust leadership roles in the Corps as necessary to facilitate growth, even if this may mean taking on additional leadership roles and giving up current leadership roles.

Finally, they must have a willingness to be creative and take calculated risks in programming and relationships so as to reach out to their community in new ways.

One of the things that they must be willing to recognize is that good health and growth is hard work. The Officer/Pastor must be committed to working hard and focus strictly on his/her Corps, and limit their outside commitments (such as police or fire chaplain, personal hobbies, and even Divisional committees and programs).

At the same time, the Soldiers must recognize that growth will require a high price from them as well, a greater commitment that may include finances, leadership, and time. The most important person for Corps growth to work will be the Officer/Pastor, but he must have the support and cooperation of the Soldiers to make it work. If it is not their plan, the plan will fail. The Officer must also have the confidence of his people.

In addition to the commitment of the Officer and the Corps leadership to this program, it also requires that Divisional Headquarters make a commitment to the program. The participating Divisions must make a commitment to have the same commanding Officer remain in the appointment for no less then three additional years after the process begins. If for some reason there is an Officer change, the incoming Officer would be counseled by the Divisional Commander to retain and actively support the process.

DHQ ⁽⁸⁾ will encourage the participating Corps to restructure their programming to more effectively meet the needs of the people being served, to better match up with leadership that is available and make evangelistic outreach more likely to succeed.

DHQ would make available special grants to the participating Corps when those grants could mean a major impact on the Corps' ability to develop in a particular area.

The final portion of the program is the commitment of Territorial Headquarters. They will commit to prayer for the process from beginning to end knowing that without the support of God nothing of value can happen.

Territorial Headquarters was committed to create and implement the process through a weekend seminar, as proposed by the Territorial Corps Growth Department. That led to Major John Morrison ⁽⁹⁾, the Territorial Corps Growth Secretary, making a Corps visit in the summer of 1997 to review the Corps' Fall plan for revitalization and providing advice and counsel. Major John Morrison was committed to visiting each Corps at least once during each year to determine the progress of the Small Corps Revitalization Process and, provide resources and training as time allows.

Territorial Headquarters would be readily available for telephone consultation with any Corps involved in the process to help "brainstorm" any challenges to the process, and they would make available any and all audio, video, and written resources on loan to each Corps.

Finally, Major John Morrison and Territorial Headquarters would as needed, serve as a positive advocate on behalf of the Corps involved in the process and the process itself, to insure that the key components of the process were kept in place throughout the three to five year period.

Chapter Two: The Survey

In order to put together a tool to test my hypothesis, I met with my advisor Dr. Ron Dalton. We discussed what were to become the six variables that I felt were barriers to growth in Salvation Army Corps. Once we had established these variables, I began work on the survey for this thesis.

As part of our discussion, I mentioned that I had been part of a committee in 1995-6 with our Territorial Headquarters to put together a program to help Corps that average less than twenty-five in their Sunday Morning services. The idea of the program was to invite the Corps with the lowest Sunday attendances and train them and equip them for Corps Growth.

In developing the survey, I put together fifty-two questions covering the six variables: frequent Officer moves, poor morale, our worship style and theological positions, poor facilities/locations, changing demographics within the membership, and the lack of finances.

Once I completed the survey ⁽¹⁰⁾, I submitted it to Dr. Dalton for his review and approval. At the same time, I was required to submit the survey to The Salvation Army Territorial Headquarters in Des Plaines, IL. I submitted this to Major Pam Phillips of the Territorial Field Secretary's Office to gain approval to distribute the surveys to the sixteen Corps that were part of the Small Corps Revitalization program.

In the weeks that followed I received word from Dr. Dalton to proceed with the survey. I then awaited approval from Territorial Headquarters, which followed a few weeks later.

In order to mail the survey out to the seventy-three participants, I required a cover letter from Colonel William Speck to accompany my letter and survey. ⁽¹¹⁾ Colonel Speck's letter merely stated that the enclosed survey had been approved for distribution to the Officers and Soldiers who participated in the program and a word of encouragement to complete the survey and return it to me.

Unfortunately, Territorial Headquarters could not provide me with the mailing addresses for the Soldiers that participated, so I had to send the surveys to their Corps with a memo to the current Corps Officer to please distribute the materials to the Soldiers involved.

PART TWO: COMMON VARIABLES THAT ARE BARRIERS TO GROWTH

This section is a breakdown of the survey by the six variables that I believe are barriers to growth and health in our Corps. These variables are:

• frequent Officer moves
• poor morale
• our worship style and theological positions
• poor facilities/locations
• changing demographics within the membership, and,
• lack of finances

Chapter Three: Frequent Moves Are Barriers to Growth

My first hypothesis is that Salvation Army Corps do not grow, because our Officers move too frequently. The average length of time an Officer stays in their appointment is approximately three years. In recent years, administration has stated their desire to raise the average to four years. Officers are moved generally because administration moves them or the Officer requests a move from their current location. There are a variety of reasons for these listed below, but as Colonel Williams Speck, the Field Secretary for Personnel ⁽¹²⁾ for The Salvation Army Central Territory, shares the "average length of a stay in an appointment for those who requested to be moved was 3.1 years and the average length of a stay for those who moved was 3.2 years." ⁽¹³⁾ It would appear there is really no big difference in longevity in the two categories.

In The Salvation Army, the reassignment of Officers is referred to as "Moves." Moves are generally initiated by our Headquarters staff who appoint Officers to other Corps, institutions and/or administrative positions. In recent years, our annual review process has included a section where Officers can indicate a desire to be moved to another location, or type of work. Included in this review process Headquarters asks for information about what grades our children are in the hopes to avoid moving a family during a pivotal year in a child's education (such as the summer between the Junior and Senior years of High School).

Last year, the Central Territory experienced moves in half of our Corps, which according to our administration is due in part to half of the moves were requested ⁽¹⁴⁾ by the Officers themselves. Yet that still leaves many moves (37 percent) that were made to accommodate the others that were moved. According to an editorial by Colonel William Speck, "this past June there were one hundred and two appointment changes, with husbands and wives counting as one change. The factors causing these changes:

Even these percentages that he quotes show that only 39 percent of the moves are due to the request of the Officers. It does show that 37 percent were moved due to the circumstances listed above. This results in thirty-seven Corps having their Officers moved to accommodate other locations and other people. This has a negative effect on those Officers, their families and their Corps. In a Central News article there was a summary from "Vision Discovery 2000. One of the findings shows that more than 51 percent of Corps people felt that Officers are transferred too often. ⁽¹⁶⁾

The Salvation Army traditionally considered the ability to mobilize Officers and staff quickly as an asset. It was not uncommon a hundred years ago to be moved every four to six months. It is difficult to understand how families could survive with that kind of lifestyle, but fortunately the Army does not operate like that any longer.

Yet in the year 2001, the Army still averages only around three years to an appointment, which is fine for those who try to fill vacancies in other locations, but it is extremely difficult on Corps that are trying to grow and reach out to their community. Rick Warren says, that "Churches that rotate pastors every few years will never experience consistent growth. l believe this is one reason for the decline of some denominations. By intentionally limiting the tenure of pastors in a local congregation, they create "lame duck" ministers." Few people want to follow a leader who isn't going to be around a year from now. The pastor may want to start all sorts of new projects, but the members will be reticent because they will be the ones having to live with the consequences long after the pastor has been moved to another church." ⁽¹⁷⁾ This often seems to be reflected in the Corps members we have met. They will often say things like, "things are going well now, but when you move it will go back to where it was before." Many are afraid to risk getting excited about a plan and new direction, because they know you won't be there long enough to see it through.

This problem of changing priorities is also a problem with frequent changes at Headquarters positions. In recent years, we have seen our Territorial focus change several times. We have had the "General's Agenda," "the Divisional Agenda," "MAP" (Mission and Purpose), "Discover Christ," and "Visioning." Each of these agendas have a different focus, and come with completely different plans that must be implemented. For Corps Officers, who decide they are not excited by it, they can wait it out, because they will move and another plan and agenda will be forth coming.

A problem we have is that Field Officers and Divisional Officers seem to think that after three or four years it is time to move. I have known Officers who think that now that they have been in a Corps for four years it is time to move on, that everything that needs to be done, has been done. Often, this was in relation to programming and finances, but there was seldom much happening with growth in the Corps and the congregation. It has become a part of our mind set, a part of our organizational culture.

In The Salvation Army we have the problem that there are those who feel they have not succeeded as an Officer if they haven't been appointed to Headquarters. They feel they must climb the ladder and move up. Being at the Corps is just a stepping stone to getting to Headquarters which is a sign that they had succeeded. This is an area that many struggle with, as well as the area of personal ambition. Is it okay to strive for particular positions and tasks? Is it okay to want something bigger, better or more important? Is it okay to view what we do as a career or is it a ministry only? This is not just a symptom within The Salvation Army, as William Willimon says, clerical moving is most often motivated by a concern for their career and salary advancement ⁽¹⁸⁾ of the individual clergy-persons. He says that this move is rarely out of a concern for the congregations. Officers who want a bigger Corps, need to recognize the fact that there are two ways to get a larger Corps. Either move to one or stay where you are growing a larger congregation. ⁽¹⁹⁾

A third reason for moves is the resignation of Officers. Even though this is not a large number each year, the low number of replacements being ordained annually at our Training College causes more stress for administration. They feel the losses when it comes time to fill Corps appointments.

There are many reasons why Officers leave the work, even though their rational is not shared with the rest of us. But in discussions that we have had with those who left, the reasons are not very different from that of other denominations. For example, Jon Phillip Johnston in his paper "A Value-Orientation Typology of The Nazarene Pastorate: An Empirical Study," states that pastors leave the ministry due to "stress prompted decisions." These causes may include but are not limited to: personal illness; work frustration; job placement problems; a sense of inadequacy; and, family-related difficulties. Both pastors and ex-pastors were found to share a common sense of hopelessness in their pastoral roles. ⁽²⁰⁾

Whether, the Officer requests a move to a new appointment or considers resignation, we do not always get a clear answer to what their motive is. Too often, Officers change Corps to escape problems or to seek a more productive field and they fail to evaluate their motives honestly. ⁽²¹⁾

Soldiers and Officers express great frustration over frequent moves. This is not an area peculiar to The Salvation Army. There are several studies done in The Salvation Army and several in the Nazarene Church that show the negative effect.

In a survey by Roy E. Rogers, to two hundred eighty-five Nazarene Pastors, Head Deacons and Treasurers of various Nazarene Churches he addresses the issue of clergy mobility. From this mailing he received one hundred seventy-six responses for a sixty-two percent response rate which is well above average. ⁽²²⁾ His results show that eighty-three percent felt that the spiritual condition of the church was influenced directly by the length of the pastoral tenure, with the implication that short stays have a negative effect. ⁽²³⁾

In another survey sent out by Mark H. Moore to one hundred thirty-seven Nazarene Ministers in the United States and Canada he looks for information on growth in churches that have had the pastor for at least twenty years. In response to the survey, Pastors said they had served their church from twenty to forty years. In that time their church's attendance generally grew. The results reported were fifty-nine said their church was larger than when they began, nine said their church was about the same from when they began, and eight said their church was smaller then when they began. ⁽²⁴⁾ Clearly, longer pastorates experience growth. In The Salvation Army we may not experience twenty year appointments, but we can strive for longer stays.

Lyle E. Schaller, a Church Growth expert says, most research concludes that from a long-term congregational perspective," the most productive years of a pastorate seldom begin before the fourth or fifth or sixth year of a minister's tenure in that congregation." This means if the Officer gets moved in three or four years, his or her most productive years in that Corps will never begin. ⁽²⁵⁾

Peter Wagner, another Church growth expert states that study after study reinforces the positive connection between length of the minister's stay and church growth. He writes, "Beasley-Murray and Wilkinson's survey in England found that 'it is not until a minister has served for five to ten years in his church that a bias toward growth becomes apparent.' Beasley-Murray himself admits that 'this finding has significantly altered my own approach to the ministry at Altrincham." ⁽²⁶⁾ A general theme is longer is better.

Lyle E. Schaller agrees when he observes that it takes a congregation three to four years to get comfortable with a pastor and see if he is a servant. He goes on to say that the productive years of a given pastorate don't even begin until the fourth or fifth years. However, it takes that long to "earn your right to lead by proving that you are a servant." ⁽²⁷⁾

Then Rick Warren, in his book "Purpose Driven Church," shares that he did an independent study of the one hundred largest churches in the United States. He wrote to each of these churches and asked a series of questions about their growth and church health. He discovered that large, growing churches differ widely in strategy, structure, and style, but there were some common denominators. He found out that healthy, large churches are led by pastors who have been there a long time. He writes, "A long pastorate does not guarantee a church will grow, but changing pastors every few years guarantees a church won't grow." ⁽²⁸⁾

Basically, all the research shows that an important factor in Church growth is the length of time the Officer stays in his Corps. Documentation suggests that it takes anywhere from four to six years to build a foundation and to get the congregations trust and cooperation. Once that foundation is established, then the Corps is ready for growth to begin.

In an effort to document the effects of frequent moves of Officers and it's effect on the Corps, I have included the following questions in my survey. These questions will hopefully demonstrate how frequent "Moves" are a barrier to the Corps growth or the lack of it.

1. In the last 20 years, how many Corps Officers have you had at this Corps?

• A. 1-3 Officers
• B. 4-6 Officers
• C. 7-9 Officers
• D. More then 10 Officer Moves
• E. I don't know

2. What do you think of the frequency of Officer moves at your Corps?

• A. I think that Officers move too often from my Corps.
• B. I think that the length of time an Officer stays is about right.
• C. I don't think Officers are left here long enough to make a difference.

3. Do you feel your Corps Officer is a good pastor?

• A. Yes
• B. No
• C. I don't think
• D. No Response

4. What rank of Officers is usually appointed to your Corps?

• A. Envoys and Auxiliary Captains
• B. New Lieutenants
• C. Experienced Lieutenants
• D. Captains
• E. Majors
• F. Varies or I don't know

5. How many years do you think an Officer should stay in your Corps for Corps growth?

• A. 2-3 Years
• B. 4-5 Years
• C. 6-7 Years
• D. 8-10 Years
• E. 11 + Years
• F. I don't know

6. If you are an Officer, how many appointments have you had in the last 20 years?

• A. 1-3 appointments
• B. 4-6 appointments
• C. 7-9 appointments
• D. 10+ appointments

7. If you are an Officer, how many years have you been in this appointment?

• A. 1 - 2 years
• B. 3 - 4 years
• C. 5 - 6 years
• D. 7+ Years
• E. I don't Know

8. If you are an Officer, how many years experience do you have (as an Officer)?

• A. 1-2 years
• B. 3-5 years
• C. 5-10 years
• D. 11-20 years
• E. 21+ years

Chapter Four: Low Morale Is A Barrier To Growth

My second hypothesis is that many Officers and Soldiers suffer from low morale due to no growth and even declining attendances at their Corps. This is actually closely related to the first problem of frequent moves. However, there are some Corps that are prone to frequent moves, and getting inexperienced Officers. Many times these Corps get new Lieutenants ⁽²⁹⁾ who are new from the Training College ⁽³⁰⁾, and after they finally start to figure out how things work, they are moved and the cycle begins again.

With the various kinds of stress that contribute to pastors and Officers leaving the work, they express a sense of hopelessness in their pastoral roles. Some of the common causes of pastoral stress include inflexibility within the church (congregation and headquarters), conflicting role expectations and a weak support system. ⁽³¹⁾

For a Corps that has experienced a significant loss in members and attendance, sometimes the first thing that has to happen is for things to bottom out. It is very much like plugging the holes in a rapidly sinking ship. The immediate problem is one of morale, the will for the people of the Corps to go on. This includes putting together a plan that will be attractive to the members and one that will motivate them to invite others to come to the Corps and experience worship. ⁽³²⁾

Rick Warren suggests that another source of frustration may be the lack of clear purpose in what they are doing as a church. If the mission is unclear, then morale will be low. "Morale and mission go together. First Corinthian 1:10 says, 'Let there be real harmony so that there won't be splits in the church . . . Be of one mind, united in thought and purpose."

Another reason Corps suffer from low morale is that there is a history of short Officer appointments and the result is that Officers and their congregations start to get restless knowing that there will be a change, soon . . . again. ⁽³³⁾

The people need to look beyond past history, and look to the future with a new hope. They must be willing to work together and display a willingness to pay the price for growth without looking over their shoulder, and stop comparing how things used to be.

Like many Churches, the Corps remember how things were in the good old days, and nothing will compare to those times. Where the first half of the twentieth century was a time of growth and expansion, now many Corps struggle to survive. Today, in general, America is an unchurched culture. "The 1940's and 1950's were the last "heyday" for the church (and the Army)." ⁽³⁴⁾ In the last quarter century, we have been challenged by declining worship attendances, and there are some projections that in the next few years that a quarter million churches could close. ⁽³⁵⁾

We need to release people for ministry and relieve them of the maintenance. We'll create a far happier, more harmonious church with a much higher morale. Fulfillment comes from doing ministry, not administration or maintenance. Having God use you to change lives will change your whole attitude. ⁽³⁶⁾

Rogers' survey revealed that 92 percent of those that responded felt that frequent moving had a negative on the Pastor's the family. In particular the moves were most harmful to kids during grades ten to twelve. ⁽³⁷⁾ This is an area that my family can identify with, as we have had a few moves during pivotal times in our families life. We must not underestimate the effect that moves has on a family. It affects the children and the parents. When the family moves frequently, we wind up losing our kids to the Army and to the Lord. If we want our Officers to feel good about the ministry, and have a high morale, we must make sure that Divisional Headquarters is pastoring them and looking out for the needs of the whole family.

I have included the following questions to help gauge the attitude of the participants and their Corps, and whether or not there is a morale problem. If indeed there is a morale problem, this must be addressed before growth will take place.

1. Do you feel your Corps and Corps Officer have a plan and/or vision for the future?

• A. Yes
• B. No
• C. I Don't know

2 How many people have you invited to your Corps in the past year?

• A. 1-2
• B. 3-4
• C. 4-5
• D. 6-7
• E. 8 or more
• F. None
• G. I don't know

3. How is your Corps presently in terms of growth?

• A. Things are getting better, new people are attending.
• B. Things are about the same, but we have some great plans for the future.
• C. Things are about the same, and nothing is changing.
• D. Things seem to be getting worse, and no indication of it getting better.
• E. I don't know.

4. How do you feel about your Corps?

• A. I feel the Corps is a great place to be, and I enjoy being there.
• B. Things are the same.
• C. Things have been better.
• D. We have tried all kinds of programs, but things continue to go downhill.
• E. I don't know.

5.  Do you feel your Corps Officer has enough time to be a pastor and visit you?

• Yes
• B. No
• C. I don't know
• D. No Response

6. How would you describe the morale of your Corps soldiery?

• A. Morale is fine. People are optimistic about the future.
• B. Morale could be better.
• C. People are apathetic about the future.
• D. Soldiers suffer from low morale due to lack of growth and even declining attendance.
• E. I don't know.

7. Do you think Headquarters is helpful to your Corps Officer?

• A. Headquarter is very helpful to our Corps Officer.
• B. Headquarters checks in occasionally, but not much help.
• C. Headquarters seems to take a lot of our Officers time.
• D. Headquarters seems to be no help to our Corps Officer.
• E. I don't know.

8. How do you think Headquarters is being helpful to your Corps?

• A. They are supportive, and offer help.
• B. They have not required the Corps to do all the programs, but let us focus on what needs to be done.
• C. Headquarters is nonexistent.
• D. Headquarters has not been helpful at all.
• E. I don't know.

Chapter Five: Worship Style and Non-Sacramental Theology Can Be a Barrier To Growth

My third hypothesis is that our worship style and our theology concerning the sacraments may cause us to lose converts. Since we do not practice Lord's Supper or baptism, some potential converts wind up going to other churches where they do practice the sacraments.

Due to our concerns about these things, The Salvation Army's international leader convened what they called the "International Commission on Spiritual Life." This Commission was organized by General Paul Rader, to review the Army's theological positions and practices in 1997 and 1998. Out of this Commission came several recommendations, of which one concerned the Sacraments. They talked about allowing the practice of the "Lord's Supper," in our Corps, but calling it a "Love Feast" which is very much like the "Lord's Supper." This among other recommendations was met with mixed reactions. In June 2001, a new Commission on Theology and Ethics met in Canada. According to a Salvation Army news release on the Salvation Army international web page, they "affirmed our ecclesiastical identity and look to the further development of our sacramental theology."

In October 1998, at the Indiana Division's Officers Councils, ⁽³⁸⁾ my wife and I (along with another couple) were asked to lead the Officers in a time of Communion. At that time we passed out the bread and passed out the small glasses of grape juice. There were a few retired Officers who declined to participate, on the grounds that we never did that before. However, the remaining Officers all felt it was a meaningful experience and enjoyed it.

In discussions with other Divisional and Field Officers there was a mix of excitement and fear about this new development. Some feared that this might lead to divisions among the Corps, since there would be some who would be happy to introduce the "Lord's Supper" in our services, and those who would not. Perhaps in individual congregations there will be divisions between those who do and those who don't. I believe it would be a positive development and will help us to attract new people and keep more of our converts.

There are also those who do not feel comfortable in our worship services, with some Corps having many people in uniform and making newcomers feel like they stand out and don't belong. There are those who don't enjoy the traditional brass band music, even though not as many Corps now have bands.

There are those who feel that our worship services are too traditional and conservative. Many churches seem to be growing by offering "Contemporary Worship" services, and seeker sensitive services that have more upbeat music.

I will use the following questions to help document any concerns that people have expressed about Salvation Army theology and our worship. Many of the questions deal with what people have heard others express their opinions, or their likes or dislikes.

1. Do you find that people you know won't come to the Corps because of our theology and practices?

• A. People have told me that they don't attend because we don't serve communion or do baptism.
• B. I have not heard people mention their concern over our lack of communion and baptism.
• C. It has not come up in conversation.
• D. I don't know.

2. How many people have you heard say they don't worship at the Corps because we don't offer communion or do baptisms?

• A. None
• B. 1 or 2
• C. 3 - 5
• D. 6 or more
• E. I don't know
• F. No Response

3. What kind of music do you use in your Corps worship services?

• A. Brass bands
• B. Piano and/or organ music
• C. Praise band
• D. CD music
• E. Guitar
• F. No music
• G. No Response

4. In your Corps worship services, how would you describe your worship style?

• A. Traditional Salvation Army meetings and music.
• B. Mostly traditional, but use some contemporary music.
• C. Mostly contemporary music with praise band, etc.
• D. Solely rely on CD music from Trade, or other sources.
• E. I don't know.
• F. No Response.

5. In your conversations with friends who have visited your Corps, what are some things they did not like about your Corps?

• A. Worship style
• B. Brass band music
• C. Social Services outreach
• D. Youth programs
• E. Corps Officer
• F. Friendliness of Corps people
• G. Testimony services
• H. Christmas programs
• I. Thrift stores
• J. Kettles
• K. Location of the Corps
• L. Preaching
• M. Summer camps
• N. Food pantry
• O. No communion or baptism
• P. The uniforms
• Q. No Response

Chapter Six: Location and Poor Facilities Are Barriers To Growth

My fourth hypothesis is that our buildings and locations are often barriers to growth. There is an old Salvation Army formula for where to locate a Salvation Army building. We try to make sure that our buildings are located in a position that will place us between the people we serve through our social service programs and the donors that help we fund our work. There is some concern by our Corps members that this makes it more difficult for us to attract converts who may feel threatened by our location.

Many of our locations are getting more difficult to get to by public transportation, and this hinders people from getting to us on Sundays on their own. With the formula of being in between the clients and the donors, it may affect who is able to worship in our chapels.

For example in Lake County, IN, the East Chicago Corps has seen its neighborhood change dramatically in the last thirty years. In 1970, it was white lower middle class community with a thriving business and industrial community. Much of the industrial community was tied into the steel industry that began to fail due to lower overseas steel. This brought a recession in Lake County, IN, and especially East Chicago. The Salvation Army of East Chicago, then began to lose their funding base as those with money moved away from the city. The Corps' social service programs then began to increase as low income Hispanic families moved into the area. In thirty years, the East Chicago Corps went from an English-speaking community to one that is now 70 percent Spanish speaking. Under Major Ruth Dahlberg who was bilingual, the services were then done in English and Spanish.

Due to the loss of available funding, the Corps began to get run down, and had to let go staff for their Community Gym Program. The programs were scaled back since there was not much money beyond keeping things afloat. In 1998, the Metropolitan Division looked to close the East Chicago Corps, but found that the real estate market was so bad that they could not sell the building. They then began to look for other options to deal with what they saw as a bad situation. They had a building where they felt they could not afford to run the program or the church. The building was too big for the budget they had.

Other problems included the need for seven day public transportation. Many low income families and the elderly rely upon the buses, and many communities don't offer weekends and night service. If the Corps or a church does not provide transportation, then people won't come.

Other communities like the Joliet Corps near Chicago, feel that their community is unsafe after dark. This leads to a problem with Salvation Army requirements. Each Corps is required to have a Sunday Evening Service, so to meet this need they meet in the early afternoon. Their schedule is Sunday School, Morning Worship, a snack and a Praise and Worship time. All this just to meet the Army's programming requirements. The people of the Corps don't feel safe, because the community is hostile.

A Corps like some in Metropolitan Division (Chicago) were built with the help of Divisional Headquarters, yet they really can't afford to support the building they have. Too often a congregation is so anxious to have a nice building that the members spend more than they can afford. Paying for and maintaining the building becomes the biggest budget item.

In other situations, people allow the smallness of their building to set the limit of future growth. Staying with an old, inadequate, building should never take priority over reaching the community. In an effort to buy inexpensive property, the Army used to purchase old funeral homes, and old churches. Many times these were already inadequate and did not provide adequate program space for a family church.

Often when a Corps exhibits some sign of life and needs to expand, the local leadership feels that Headquarters does not share their vision. Instead of building for the future and for growth, they often can't get approval to expand beyond a conservative five to ten percent growth. A building, or the lack of enough space, or even the location should never be allowed to become a barrier to growth. People are far more important than property." ⁽³⁹⁾

There are many Corps that don't have much program space or a small chapel. Either way it becomes a barrier to growth. If you don't have enough room for classes and programs, it will keep your congregation small. Families with small children are looking for a church that will offer youth programs, recreational programs and activities for the whole family. If you don't have adequate space then you will not have what people are looking for. A small building can strangle the growth of a church. ⁽⁴⁰⁾

The following questions will look to document the problems of a poor location or a poor building.

1 How would you describe the location of your Corps for attracting new people?

• A. We are easy to find and on a main bus route.
• B. We are off the main routes and it is hard for people to find us.
• C. We are in a run down area of town, and new people don't come here.
• D. No Response.

2. Do you think your Corps is in a good location for providing social services?

• A. We are on the bus routes, easy to get to.
• B. We are off the main streets but people can get here.
• C. We are close to where people in need can walk to us.

3. How would you describe the location of your Corps?

• A. We are in the middle class area of town. There is economic growth and stability.
• B. We are in a working class community. Economic growth is steady.
• C. We are in a stagnant area.
• D. We are in a dying area.

4. In the old Salvation Army formula, we always tried to make sure we were geographically located between the people we serve in social services and the donors that help us finance the work. Do you think this still works for us today?

• A. This may make it more difficult for us to attract converts who may feel threatened by our location.
• B. Many of our locations are also difficult to get to and transportation needs could hinder people from getting to us on Sunday.
• C. With the formula of being in between the clients and the donors, it may affect who will worship in our chapels.
• D. I don't know.

Chapter Seven: Changing Demographics Within the Membership Can Be A Barrier To Growth

My fifth hypothesis is that our changing demographics show that our low-income congregations are less likely to show significant growth. With changes in our communities and our Corps we need to change with the culture and community if we are wanting to grow and become larger congregations, most of our Corps continue to remain in low income areas.

Where many of our larger Corps are in established and stable communities, their members are more middle class. It seems many of their Officers stay longer, and the small Corps continue to experience frequent changes.

Salvation Army Corps are located in a variety of situations. There are Corps that are located in poor inner-city minority communities to the upper-middle-class suburban community. With the differences in cultures and demographics, we find different levels of committed leadership. Leadership patterns can vary significantly from one level to another. ⁽⁴¹⁾ Many of the Corps that could use help do not have adequate leadership. It was not that many years ago, at a Territorial Congress that one local officer from the inner-city of Chicago appealed to people who attended the bigger Corps to consider coming and help be leaders at the poor inner-city Corps. He mentioned how they had no music and piano players, but he knows some Corps that had four or five piano players that didn't even play at their Corps, and are wasting their gifts.

With the changes in our communities it means understanding the demographics of our community is important. It is even more important to understand the culture of our community if we want to reach out and win souls for the Lord. We need to understand the culture, the lifestyle and mind-set of those who live around the Corps. We need to understand their values, interests, hurts, and fears. ⁽⁴²⁾

Some of our Corps like the Gary-Merrillville, IN, Corps that continues to be a white lower-middle class congregation, but is surrounded by an African-American community. The people want to grow, but they don't want any of the local people to come to "their" Corps. They are incapable of reaching out to the community unless they change their attitudes and open up the building and church to people that are different than themselves. The Des Plaines Salvation Army is a young church, and has only been around since 1995. In that short time the community around the Corps building has gone under transition. In the last ten years the community has become heavily Hispanic. In the total population of Des Plaines, the Hispanic population has gone from two percent to eighteen percent in ten years. The Corps has made several efforts to attract Hispanic families, but language and culture have been a barrier. In February 2001, the Corps got funding to hire a Hispanic Outreach worker who assists Hispanic families with social services and conducts Hispanic worship services on Sunday mornings. Instead of cutting themselves off from the changing community, the people chose to embrace the people of the community. The people of the East Chicago Corps experienced a big change in the last thirty years. The community became seventy percent Hispanic. When Major Ruth Dahlberg, who is bilingual was transferred, the Corps went to strictly Hispanic services. The English speaking were given transportation to another near by Salvation Army Corps. This allowed the Corps to grow as a Hispanic Ministry and not continue to experience the conflict with the English-speaking members who resented having the Services done in Spanish. The one group chose not to embrace the other, so due to changing demographics the one group was moved to allow the other to flourish.

The following questions are designed to gauge the condition of Corps, and how the people are reacting to the changes in their church and community.

1. How long have you and your family been attending the Corps?

• A. 1-5 years
• B. 5-10 years
• C. 10-20 years
• D. All my life
• E. No Response

2. How many people attend your Sunday morning worship services on average?

• A. Less then 10
• B. 10-20 people
• C. 20-30 people
• D. 30-40 people
• E. More then 40 people

3. How many adults attend your Sunday morning worship services on average?

• A. Less then 10
• B. 10-15
• C. 16-20
• D. 21-25
• E. More then 26 adults

4. In the last 20 years, how would you describe your Corps growth?

• A. We have grown on an average of 10% or more in an average year.
• B. We have shown slow but steady growth (1-5% growth) per the average year.
• C. There has not been much of a change in the last 20 years.
• D. We are slowly decreasing and losing people.
• E. We are dying as a Corps.
• F. No Response.

5. How do people get to your Corps for Sunday Services?

• A. Most of us drive and get there on our own.
• B. Many of us get there on our own and some get picked up by the Corps.
• C. Most of our people get picked up for our services.
• D. I don't know.

6. What is your annual income range?

• A. Less than $10,000.00
• B. $10,000.00 - 20,000.00
• C. $20,000.00 - 30,000.00
• D. $30,000.00 - 40,000.00
• E. $40,000.00 - 50,000.00
• F. More then $50,000.00 a year
• G. No Response

Chapter Eight: Poor Corps Finances Are A Barrier To Growth

My sixth and final hypothesis I hope to demonstrate that Corps finances (poor finances) are barriers to Corps growth. Having spent thirteen years in the Heartland Division (Central Illinois and Eastern Iowa), we were constantly being reminded that our Corps and Headquarters were in debt. Much emphasis was given to finances, budgeting, fund-raising, etc. This left little energy or time for evangelism and Corps growth. In the small struggling Corps, money is always an issue, a point of survival. Between finding funds to keep the building open and pay for social services, there was seldom any money for programming or evangelism. When you are out in a small town in the Midwest, you can only do so much fund-raising since the community only had so much to give. Corps that are in Metropolitan areas like Chicago can apply for additional funds from Divisional Headquarters to fund their program. But even that is for survival purposes, and seldom to expand programming or put money aside for worship and evangelism.

This is a common problem with many small churches, as Rick Warren states, "When the finances get tight in a church, often the first thing cut is the evangelism and advertising budget. That is the last thing you should cut. It is the source of new blood and life for your church." ⁽⁴³⁾ Yet when you are striving to survive, you get into a "Catch-22," because it can cause your church to decrease even more. There is nothing then being done to help bring new people, new life and even new money into the church.

The following questions are to find out what the financial giving is like at the Corps and find out what potential the Corps could have.

1. How would you describe the financial background of the soldiers of your Corps?

• A. We are a middle class crowd. People have extra income for recreation, etc.
• B. Most of our people make a comfortable living, not always extra income for extras, but we get by.
• C. Things are tight for most people, but we get by.
• D. Most of our people are not working. They are on welfare or Social Security.

2. Do you contribute financially to your Corps?

• A. Yes
• B. No

3. Do you tithe at your Corps (give 10%)?

• A. Yes
• B. No

4. How many people tithe at your Corps?

• A. 1-5
• B.  6-10
• C. 10+
• D. I don't know
• E. None

5. What are the Corps finances like at your Corps?

• A. We are constantly in debt and have to cut back on programs.
• B. We struggle financially, having to watch our spending.
• C. We are able to get by, and can do extra things.
• D. We have plenty of money for the Corps and programs.
• E. No Response.

6. Do you think your Corps financial condition has an effect on your Corps Officers' ability to work on Corps growth?

• A. Yes
• B. No
• C. I don't know

7. Do you think there is a connection between the financial condition of your Corps and your Corps Officers time for evangelism and Corps growth?

• A. My Corps Officer has to spend too much time on the fund-raising that he has little time for pastoring and Corps growth.
• B. I have not noticed any connection.
• C. No Response.

8. What kind of help does Headquarters give your Corps and Corps Officer? (Circle all that apply)

• A. Financial grants.
• B. Mentoring.
• C. Help with conferences for personal improvement.
• D. Providing consultants.
• E. Budget planning.
• F. Program planning.
• G. Property planning.
• H. I don't know.
• I. No response.

PART THREE: THE SMALL GROUP REVITALIZATION SURVEY

As I had mentioned in an earlier section of this paper, there were seventy-three participants that I planned to mail surveys to. There were not seventy-three people attending the seminar, but due to the changes in Officers in seventy-five percent of these appointments in the first three years of this program, I wanted to get all the Officers who had participated in any way.

I was not able to get the addresses for the Soldiers who had attended, so I sent their surveys to the current Corps Officers and asked them to pass them out to the participants. Out of this mailing to seventy-three participants, twenty-nine were Soldiers, thirty-four were Officers and ten Officers who had resigned.

I waited for the surveys to be sent back. I gave a deadline of six weeks. At the end of that time I received thirty-four surveys, with twenty-four from Officers and ten from Soldiers. The return rate was 54.5 percent for Officers and 34.4 percent for Soldiers, and none from the former Officers. I gave the opportunity for participants to write in comments and share their feelings. There were several who had a lot to say and they were quite disappointed in what had been happening. I will include these comments in the appropriate sections.

Next chapter, I will review the results of the Survey, and analyze the results and any patterns.

 

Chapter Nine: The Results and Analyses of the Survey

In this section I will present the results of the survey, and analyze what some of those results might suggest. In the surveys that were mailed back, 71 percent of the responses were from Officers for a total of twenty-four (54.5 percent response from the Officer group), and 29 percent (34.4 percent of the Soldier group) were from Soldiers for a total of ten. Where it is of significance I will break down the percentages and interpret what I believe is being said.

In the analyze of the survey, I will present the results first of the total group by number and percent, and then with a break down of numbers and percentages by the Officer group and the Soldier group.

Section One: Frequency of Officer Changes

My first hypothesis states that I feel that many Corps do not grow because the Pastor, the Officers move too frequently. When you consider the research says that it takes four to five years to establish a foundation for growth, these survey results show a disturbing trend in these small Corps. It really makes no difference to the Corps if the move is taking place because the Corps Officer is requesting the move or because Headquarters had initiated the move. The result is that there is "another change" and the Corps has to start all over.

3. In the last 20 years, how many Corps Officers have you had at this Corps?	TOTAL	OFFICER	LAYPERSON
A. 1-3 Officers	3	2	1
B. 4-6 Officers	6	4	2
C. 7-9 Officers	13	10	3
D. More then 10 Officer Moves	7	5	2
E. I don't know	5	3	2

As you can see from the thirty-four responses, that in a twenty-year period at least twenty of these Corps (59 percent) have had seven or more Officers. Of these twenty Corps, seven Corps have had ten or more Officer moves for an average of less then two years per Officer.

In addition to this another six responses (18 percent) say there have been four to six Officer changes, which averages out to about a four-year stay. This is just enough time to build the foundation, and then there is a change. Only three Corps (9 percent) have had only one to three changes in a twenty-year span.

Out of this group if you consider that a four to a five-year stay is just laying the foundation, then moves within this time span eliminate the opportunity for real growth. In this group more than seventy-seven percent of the Corps experience changes before the four to five-year time period is over, with an additional 15 percent who were not sure how often their Corps had a change. Another way to look at this is that only nine percent of the Corps had their Officer in place long enough to build the foundation and prepare for growth.

In addition, keep in mind that at the beginning of the Small Corps Revitalization process there was a commitment to keep the Officer in place for an additional three years. But, at this time 75 percent of the six Corps have had at least one change in Officers. To make things worse, two Corps (12.5 percent) have had two Officer changes, five Corps (31.25 percent) had three Officer changes, and one Corps (6.25 percent) had four changes. There can be no growth with these many changes.

When questioned about the frequency of Officer moves, twenty-nine people (85 percent) thought Officers moved too often, with more than twenty-one (80 percent) of twenty-four Officers and eight of ten Soldiers (80 percent) said the Officers are moved too often.

Considering how often the Officers have moved from these Corps five people (14 percent) felt that the length of stay is about right (three Officers for 14 percent and two Soldiers for 20 percent). In reviewing the individual surveys, these responses came from Corps and Officers who experienced the longer appointments (one to three Officers in twenty years).

Clearly the vast majority felt the Officer moved too often. As mentioned before, four years is just laying the foundation, and then the real work can begin. You cannot cut corners. I know I used to think in the Army that we had learned to speed up the process, but in looking back, I can see we were only fooling ourselves. Planting and harvesting takes time.

Based on these results it is clear that most people feel the Officers are not left in their appointments long enough, but clearly they are moved too frequently.

In several resources they suggest that in the first few years of an appointment, the pastor is seen somewhat like a chaplain, but it takes several years for the people to view you as their pastor and see you as a servant and as someone they trust enough to share their confidence.

In question eighteen, I asked if they thought the Officer was a good pastor, and got a generally good response. Twenty-one people (61 percent) felt their Officers were doing a good job (fifteen Officers for 43 percent and six Soldiers for 60 percent). Only three people (8 percent) felt that the Officer was not a good Pastor which represents 30 percent of the Soldiers in the survey. No Officers said they were not a good Pastor, but nine Officers (37 percent of the Officers) said they didn't know or didn't respond.

I believe the 60 percent response by Soldiers is a good sign that the Officers are able to establish relationships with their people, but clearly those relationships don't have time to mature in four years or less. The Pastor/Officer is generally considered to be a draw to the Church. If he is not a good pastor or preacher, they will not hold the newcomers.

In question twenty-one, I was trying to determine if the small Corps get inexperienced young Officers, some are at their first appointment and are learning how to function as a pastor and administrator. It is important to know level of experience and training their Officers usually have. For example, some Corps have Envoys and Auxiliary Captains ⁽⁴⁴⁾ which are employees and non-ordained leaders, and generally lack the training and preparation that a Commissioned Officer receives . According to this survey, thirteen Corps (38 percent) had Lieutenants which have up to five years of experience of Officer and have not generally had Envoys or Auxiliary Captains even though several of those who responded would fall into this category. This is reflected no doubt in the eleven Corps (32 percent) that state that the rank of Officer they have varies. Only ten Corps (29 percent) stated they generally have experienced Officers by way of Captains, and none generally have Officers with the rank of Major. ⁽⁴⁵⁾

It appears based on these results that it is not generally true that these small Corps get only inexperienced Lieutenants, which would have make growth a more difficult as they learn to be Officers and Pastors.

Since 51 percent of people said that Officers moved too frequently in the Central News article, I asked the participants how long they thought an Officer should stay in their Corps and appointment.

Of the thirty-four responses no one thought two to three years was an adequate time to minister in their Corps and experience Corps growth. There were twelve people (35 percent) who felt that a four to a five-year stay would be good for growth. Of this group were eight Officers (33 percent) and four Soldiers (40 percent). In the next group we had sixteen people 47 percent) who felt it took six to seven years to see growth. Of this group were thirteen Officers (54 percent) and three Soldiers (30 percent). In the next group we had four people (12 percent) who felt an eight to a ten-year stay would be necessary for growth. Of this group we had two Officers (8 percent) and two Soldiers (20 percent). There was one Soldier (10 percent of Soldiers and 3 percent of total group) who felt a stay of eleven years or more would be good. And there was one Officer who did not know what would be a good length of stay.

Clearly most people felt that the average appointment that we experience now is too short. Almost half of those who responded felt that an Officers should be there for at least six to seven years. I was concerned that twelve people (35 percent) were content with four to five years, since that would just allow enough time for laying the foundation, but not allowing for the growth to begin.

I think part of the problem is the organizational culture that we have come to accept, that we move often, and a longer stay is only measured in an additional one or two years. I had hoped that more people and Officers would have thought eleven or more years would be a good option. Many churches that experience significant growth have the same pastor for fifteen to twenty years. Perhaps we are still too busy looking over our shoulder for the next best thing.

The next three questions are specifically for Officers. There were twenty-four Officers that responded, and I wanted to get more information about their personal experiences with longevity. The questions are a little out of order because I felt that number fifty and fifty-two tied in together in a way that really changed the way we view the responses in number fifty.

As you can see in question fifty-one, out of the twenty-four Officers fifteen (63 percent) had been their present Corps appointment for one to two years. Seven Officers (29 percent) had been in their present Corps for three to four years. This represents 92 percent of the Corps that remain in the foundational stage of growth.

Then we had two Officers (8 percent) who had been in their present appointment for five to six years. Then there were no Officers who had been in their present Corps for seven or more years. Out of sixteen Corps only two of the original Small Corps Revitalization group has advanced to the point that they should be able to build on the foundation.

In question fifty, I asked the Officers in twenty years how many appointments had they had. I wanted to get a feel for their experience and if they also moved too frequently. I know as a young Officer, I moved on average every two years, and felt the frustration that we did not have an opportunity to see our Corps grow.

In question fifty, eleven Officers (32 percent) had four to six appointments this puts them with an average of four years per appointment, which is still in the foundation years for growth. Then we have two Officers (6 percent) that had seven to nine appointments or an average of three years. Then we had one Officer (3 percent ) who had ten or more appointments in twenty years.

In question fifty-two, I was trying to determine how long our Officers in the Survey had served as ministers and Officers. Nine Officers (38 percent) responded with A and B to show they had less then five years experience as Officer which would represent the Lieutenants. There were fourteen Officers (59 percent) with five to twenty-year's experience, which would represent the Captains in our group. Then we had one Officer (4 percent) with twenty or more years of experience which represents the Majors. Clearly 76 percent of the Officers had less then ten years experience on the field.

Out of the twenty-four responses surprisingly ten Officers (29 percent) had only had one to three appointments. When you contrast that with the fact that in question fifty-two only six Officers had more then eleven years experience this number this probably reflects the fact that some of those Officers had not been on the field for twenty years.

I went back through the surveys to determine a true picture of the Officer group. Of the ten Officers that had one to three appointments in twenty years, five of those Officers had less then two years experience, three had three to five years experience and two had an average of five to ten years experience. As a group those who had one to three appointments had an average of less then four years experience as an Officer and Pastor.

In evaluating the eleven Officers who said they had four to six appointments in the last twenty years, one had three to five years experience, six had five to ten years experience and four had eleven to twenty years experience. As a group those who had four to six appointments had an average of eight years and two months experience.

In the third group that said they had seven to nine appointments there were two Officers of which one had five to ten years experience and one with more than twenty years experience. As a group these two Officers had an average of seventeen and a half years experience.

One Officer reported that they had ten or more appointments in less then twenty years experience. This places this person at the point of averaging fewer then two years per appointment.

Section Two: Morale of Officers and Soldiers

A very real obstacle for the small church is downward momentum. Once things start to go downhill, you cut back on programs and stop reaching out, then you start to focus on mere survival. Instead of reaching out and doing the work of God, you look to survival. ⁽⁴⁶⁾

Proverbs 29: 18 says, 'Where there is no vision, the people perish.' Rick Warren reminds us that where there is no vision, people will leave for another church! "Many churches are barely surviving because they have no vision. They limp along from Sunday to Sunday because they've lost sight of their purpose for continuing. A church without purpose and mission eventually becomes a museum piece of yesterday's traditions." ⁽⁴⁷⁾

This section of the survey deals with morale and how people feel about their Corps and Church. It is a check to see if they are spiraling downward or is there a vision or a plan for the future.

Eighty-two percent of those that responded said their Corps had a vision and plan for the future (88 percent of the Officers and 70 percent of the Soldiers). This left six (18 percent) who said no or didn't know if their Corps had a vision statement or plan.

I found this a little curious since all Corps in the Central Territory were required to go through a process of writing their own vision statement(s). This has been the basis for a lot of our reports and reviews as Headquarters looks to see if we are achieving our goals or at least making progress. It is my guess that Corps did do it but with transfers of Officers the material has been misplaced.

In question twelve, twenty-seven people (80 percent) stated that felt comfortable in inviting people to attend their worship services with Officers and Soldiers being 80 percent in each category. Only 20 percent did not feel comfortable in inviting people.

In question twelve, it would seem that when it comes to the morale of the people attending the Corps, if the people (Officers and Soldiers) didn't feel good about their Corps and its future, they would be less likely to invite friends and family to attend. Clearly eighty percent of Officers and Soldiers felt good about inviting people. In this area, we see a bigger difference between Officers and Soldiers, since Officers are more likely to make those kinds of contacts when people come to the Corps for social services and other programs. However several of the Soldiers did more inviting than I anticipated.

In question thirteen, five people (15 percent) have invited three to four people in the last year (two Officers for 8 percent and three Soldiers for 30 percent). Seven people (21percent) have invited four to five people in the last year (three Officers for 13 percent and four Soldiers for 40 percent). Four people (12 percent) have invited six to seven people in the last year (three Officers for 13 percent and one Soldier for 10 percent). Seventeen people (50 percent) said they invited eight or more people in the last year (fifteen Officers for 63 percent and two Soldiers for 20 percent).

No one said they had not invited anyone. One Officers (4 percent) said he or she didn't know how many they had invited in the last year. It is possible that if you invite people all the time that you might lose track, but I would assume if that were the case they would have marked eight or more as their correct response.

Question fifteen deals with how people perceive their Corps now and its future in terms of it growing, is it stable or is it dying?

Eleven people (32 percent) think things are getting better (seven Officers for 29 percent and four Soldiers for 40 percent). Eleven people (32 percent) think things are about the same but have some hope for the future (nine Officers for 38 percent and two Soldiers for 20 percent). Six people (18 percent) think things are about the same with no change in sight (four Officers for 17 percent and two Soldiers for 20 percent). Six people (18 percent) think things are getting worse with no hope in sight (four Officers for 17 percent and two Soldiers for 20 percent).

In general, eleven (32 percent) think things are getting better, seventeen (50 percent) feel things are about the same and six (18 percent) think things are getting worse.

It would seem that there are less that see their Corps dying and the rest are more optimistic about their future. Based on this information, it would seem that morale is doing fine in these sixteen Corps.

Question fifteen asked for their thoughts about their Corps, but in question sixteen I asked how they feel about their Corps. Between these two questions we find there are some differences in their responses.

Fourteen (41 percent) feel the Corps is doing well (nine Officers for 38 percent and five Soldiers for 50 percent). Five Officers (15 percent) feel things are about the same. Fifteen people (35 percent ) feel things have been better and are even going downhill (ten Officers for 42 percent and five Soldiers for 50 percent).

Between these two questions, we find three more people shifting toward a negative view of their Corps, and perhaps some more low morale.

One concern that many have is that due to programming, fund-raising and finance needs the Officer does not have enough time to pastor and visit. There is a wider difference of opinion between Officers and Soldiers.

Nine people (26 percent) responded yes, our Officers has enough time to be a Pastor (four Officers for 17 percent and five Soldiers for 50 percent). Eighteen people (53 percent) responded that no they don't have enough time to be a pastor (fifteen Officers for 63 percent and three Soldiers for 30 percent). Seven people (21 percent) didn't know or didn't respond (five Officers for 21 percent and two Soldiers for 20 percent).

By this question, one Soldier wrote that the lack of time to be a pastor was a cop out.

Eight people (24 percent) feel that morale is fine (six Officers for25 percent and two Soldiers for 20 percent). Ten people (29 percent) feel morale could be better (nine Officers for 37 percent and one Soldier for 10 percent). Three people (9 percent) feel people are apathetic (three Officers for13 percent ). Thirteen people (38 percent) feel Soldiers are suffering from low morale (six Officers for 25 percent and seven Soldiers for 70 percent).

If we break this down, 75 percent of the Officers and 80 percent of the Soldiers feel that morale could be better-- to it is negative, with only 25 percent of the Officers and 20 percent of the Soldiers being optimistic about the future.

If we were to compare question fifteen which asks people to describe their growth and 35 percent feel it not growing to things are getting worse -- to question sixteen which asks to describe how do you feel about your Corps with 44 percent saying it could be better to things are getting worse -- to question twenty-nine which asks people to describe the morale of the Soldiers and where 73 percent who things could be better to people are apathetic and there is low morale.

When you review the progression, it seems the perception gets worse, especially when I asked outright how the morale is. In this regard, question twenty-nine shows that seventy percent of the Soldiers responded that "Soldiers are suffering from low morale due to the lack of growth and declining attendances".

When you review those three questions together, I would say that is clear that there is a low morale problem and that there is connect with low and declining attendances.

You will recall that in Chapter One, part of the Revitalization process included a commitment from Divisional and Territorial Headquarters to visit the Corps, keep up by telephone, provide resources on a loan basis and even offer grants that could make a major impact on the Corps' ability to develop in a particular area. This next question deals with per perception of how helpful Headquarters has been.

Thirteen people (38 percent) think that Divisional Headquarters was helpful (ten Officers for 42 percent and three Solders for30 percent). Twenty-one people (62 percent combining answers B, C and D) think that Divisional Headquarters was not helpful (fifteen Officers for 63 percent and six Soldiers for 60 percent) and one person (3 percent) didn't know how Divisional Headquarters is or isn't helpful (one Soldier for 10 percent).

I did have one Soldier who wrote that they thought Divisional and Territorial Headquarter had abandoned them and all they were interested in was money. He stated that they did not live up to the agreements from the Seminar.

In question forty-three people seem a bit more optimistic about the help that Headquarters is providing by not making them do all the programs. Six people (18 percent) thought Divisional Headquarters was supportive (three Officers for 13 percent and three Soldiers for 30 percent). Seventeen people (50 percent) thought that Divisional Headquarters was helpful by not requiring the Corps to do all the required programs but instead focus on the basics (fourteen Officers for 58 percent and three Soldiers of 30 percent). Eight people (24 percent) felt that Divisional Headquarters was nonexistent or not helpful at all (five Officers for 21 percent and three Soldiers for 30 percent). Five people (15 percent) didn't know to what extent Divisional Headquarters was helping or not helping (three Officers for 13 percent and two Soldiers for 20 percent).

When we compare questions forty with forty-three, the negative view of Headquarters support drops from 62 percent to 24 percent. However there is an increase in the number of people who said they didn't know if Headquarters was being helpful. This number goes from one soldier for 3 percent to five people for 14 percent with three Officers (8 percent) not being sure if Headquarters was being helpful.

One Soldier did comment that they found Divisional Headquarters was being very cooperative in not expecting their small Corps to do all the programs. While one Officer wrote that Headquarters gave them a lot of lip service, and ignored the Revitalization plan and insisted on them doing all the mainline programs, even when they had not kids or leaders to do that program.

Section Three: Worship and Theology Issues

Worship is an important part of Church life, and yet there is so much diversity and division in the way it is done. Some say, that most Churches still worship like it is 1950, and can't understand why people from the new millennium don't feel drawn to that style of worship. The truth is that there is room for traditional and contemporary worship, from organs and choirs to brass bands and praise bands, to sacramental and non-sacramental worship.

Question thirty-four deals with our theology and only four people (12 percent) know of others who do not attend The Salvation Army because our non-sacramental theology and practices (two officers for 8 percent and two Soldiers for 20 percent). Thirty people (88 percent) have not heard that our non-sacramental position is the reason why they do not attend Salvation Army as their church (twenty-two Officers for 96 percent and eight Soldiers for 80 percent). Based on these results it appears that it is seldom an issue with people.

When we asked people the additional question about how many people they have heard say they don't worship at The Salvation Army we found the number went up. Twenty-one people (62 percent) said they had not heard anyone say this was not a reason they don't worship at The Salvation Army (fifteen Officers for 63 percent and six Soldiers for 60 percent). Seven people (21percent) said they have heard one to two people (seven Officers for 17 percent and three Soldiers for 30 percent). Two people (6 percent) said they have heard three to five people say that was a reason they didn't attend (one Officer for 4 percent and one Soldier for 10 percent). There were no responses for the six or more people and there were four people (12 percent) who didn't know or didn't respond (four Officers for 16 percent).

When we compare this with question number thirty-four, where four people (12 percent) said they had heard anyone say our theology was the reason they do not worship at The Salvation Army to question forty-two, where nine people (27 percent) had heard this said as a reason it is more of a issue then we originally thought.

It will be interesting to see how many Corps will begin to follow the suggestions of the International Spiritual Life Commission and begin incorporating "love feasts," etc., in their worship services.

 

44. What kind of music do you use in your Corps Worship services?	TOTAL	OFFICER	LAYPERSON
A. Brass bands	3	2	1
B. Piano and/or organ music	21	13	8
C. Praise band	7	6	1
D. CD music	26	18	8
E. Guitar	8	7	1
F. No music	0	0	0
G. No Response	1	1	0

Question forty-four deals with what kind of music is used in the Corps worship services. The results show that three people said (8 percent) they used brass bands (two Officers for 8 percent and one Soldier for 10 percent) which generally is the traditional, conservative music. Twenty-one people (62 percent) said the used piano and/or organ music (thirteen Officers for 54 percent and eight Soldiers for 80 percent), which is generally traditional music as well. There were seven people (21 percent) who said they used a praise band (six Officers with 25 percent and one Soldier for 10 percent), which is generally contemporary music. Twenty-six people (76 percent) said they use CD music (eighteen Officers for 75 percent and eight Soldiers for 80 percent), which can be traditional and contemporary music. There were eight people (24 percent) that said they use guitar music (seven Officers for 29 percent and one Soldier for 10 percent).

From this question we can see that twenty-six (76 percent) of the Corps are using CD music in their worship services, and twenty-one (62 percent) out of thirty-four use the piano/organ for their worship. As would be expected from small Corps there is an absence of brass music which requires at least a small group of four to six to get a good sound.

Question forty-five requests information on the style of worship at their Corps. Four people (12 percent) said their Corps uses traditional music (one Officer for 4 percent and three Soldiers for 30 percent). Nineteen people (56 percent) said their Corps uses mostly traditional music with some contemporary (fifteen Officers 62 percent and four Soldiers for 40 percent). Four people (12 percent) said their Corps uses mostly contemporary music with a praise band (three Officers for 12 percent and one Soldier for 10 percent). Nine people (21 percent) said their Corps relies on CD music or other sources (Seven Officers for 29 percent and two Soldiers for 20 percent).

Based on the survey it indicates that most of the music these Corps are using are traditional and conservative. If these Corps want to reach out to new people, especially the unchurched they may to use more contemporary and upbeat music.

In question forty-eight, there were a variety of items that related to The Salvation Army worship services, social service programs, outreach programs, etc. The people were asked what others said they did not like about The Salvation Army. There were several items that relate specifically to our worship style and our theology.

Three people (9 percent) did not like the worship style of the Corps (two Officers for 8 percent and one Soldier for 10 percent). One person (3 percent) did not like the brass band music (one Officer for 4 percent). One person (3 percent) did not like the preaching at the Corps (one Soldier for 10 percent). Five people (15 percent) did not like that the Corps does not offer communion or baptism (three Officers for 13 percent and two Soldiers for 20 percent). Fourteen people (41percent) did not respond this question, (ten Officers for 42 percent and four Soldiers for 40 percent).

In question thirty-nine we have the same categories that were listed in question forty-eight, except these are things people like about the Army.

Fifty-three percent of the people said that the worship style was something people liked about the Corps, with 50 percent saying they enjoyed the friendliness of the people. Forty-four percent of the people liked the Officers and 29 percent enjoyed the preaching. Thirty-eight percent said the youth programs were a positive draw. With the small number of Corps with brass bands, there were only 6 percent that said the brass band was an item that people liked.

Clearly these Corps have things they do well and they ought to celebrate these things. Too often, we get so caught up in seeing what is wrong with our Corps that we don't see the good that is there. This is one obstacle to Corps growth, not celebrating what we do well.

Section Four: Location and Corps Building

The Salvation Army Corps building is used not only as a Church for the members to meet in and worship, but as a building to serve Him as we serve the community with youth programs and social service programs.

Too often, our buildings are not located in an area that is conducive to both needs. The need for space causes a conflict between worship needs and program. This section, the questions deal with location and buildings, and whether or not our buildings are an asset to growth or barriers to growth.

With many of our buildings being older, some are not disability assessable which makes it difficult for the elderly and handicap to participate in our buildings. Again, this makes for a barrier that prevents growth.

In regards to questions twenty-two and twenty-four, this deals with the location of The Salvation Army building. In many communities The Salvation Army building was positioned to be in the midpoint between the clients in need of social services and the donors and friends who help to fund the work of the community. In the last thirty to forty years many of these communities have become run down and the Salvation Army buildings are now clearly in the poorer sections of the community and many times can become run down as well.

Question twenty-two relates to the location of the Corps for the purpose of attracting people to worship, while question twenty-four deals with the location of the Corps for the purpose of providing social services.

There were twenty people (59 percent ) who said they were easy to find and on a main bus route (fifteen Officers for 63 percent and five Soldiers for 50 percent). There were five people (15 percent) who said they were off the main routes and it is hard for people to find them (four Officers for 17 percent and one Soldier for 10 percent). There were nine people (26 percent) who said they were in a run down area of town, and new people don't come there (six Officers for 25 percent and three Soldiers for 30 percent). There was one soldier (3 percent) that gave no response (one Soldier for 10 percent).

The issue of public transportation is an important issue for people that come to the Corps. Many communities are not able to provide public transportation at night and on the weekends. If there are no pickups, then these people cannot get to the Corps.

In question twenty-four, we asked basically the same question about location but this time in regards to it being a good location for providing social services? Fourteen people (41 percent) thought the Corps was on the bus routes, and therefore easy to get to (twelve Officers for 50 percent and two Soldiers for 20 percent). Nine people (26 percent) thought the Corps was off the main streets but people can get here (seven Officers for 29 percent and two Soldiers for 20 percent). Twelve people (35 percent) thought the Corps was close to where people in need can walk to the Corps (six Officers for 25 percent and six Soldiers for 60 percent).

Based on the results of this survey, people felt that their buildings were in a good location for social services and as a church.

In question twenty-five, I asked people to describe the location of your Corps. I wanted to see if they felt they were in a growing or dying community. There were four people (12 percent) who said the Corps was in the middle class area of town, and there is economic growth and stability (two Officers for 8 percent, and two Soldiers for 20 percent) while, there were eleven people (32 percent) who said the Corps is in a working class community, and economic growth is steady (ten Officers for 42 percent and one Soldier for 10 percent). Then there were fourteen people (forty-one percent) who said the Corps is in a stagnant area (eight Officers for 33 percent and six Soldiers for 60 percent), with an additional five people (15 percent) who said the Corps is in a dying area (four Officers for 17 percent and one Soldier for 10 percent).

In summary, 44 percent of the surveys felt their Corps was in a community with a strong economy and growing, while 56 percent thought their community was stagnant or dying.

Question thirty-five, asks people to speculate on whether the formula of locating a Corps between the people we serve in social services and the donors that help us finance the work still works and if it affects the Corps in attracting new worshipers.

Eight people (24 percent) thought this makes it more difficult for the Corps to attract converts who may feel threatened by the location (seven Officers for 29 percent and one Soldier for 10 percent). Six people (18 percent) thought that many of our locations are difficult to get to and transportation needs could hinder people from getting to us on Sunday (four Officers for 17 percent and two Soldiers for 20 percent). Twelve people (34 percent) thought the formula of being in between the clients and the donors would affect who will worship in our chapels (nine Officers for 38 percent and three Soldiers for 30 percent). Then there were eight people (24 percent) who responded that they don't know (four Officers for 17 percent and three Soldiers for 30 percent).

These results seem to disagree with answers in questions twenty-two, that suggests this may make it more difficult to get people to worship in our chapels when we are located in some of these communities. This may be the difference between perception and what is actually happening, since most don't report a problem.

Section Five: Changing Demographics

Earlier I mentioned that many of our Corps (and churches) had experienced their "heyday" back in the 1940's and 1950's and that many Corps are suffering from dwindling attendances, aging buildings, and changing neighborhoods. Along with these changes is the change in who now attends the Corps. Some Corps have the same people that have been there for forty years, and some have changing congregations to reflect the changing communities, in today's mobile society. Since many of the responses I received were from Officers, the responses from the Soldiers would be more significant indicators of what is happening in this particular Corps.

In question number one, I want find out how long the Corps leadership has been attending the Corps. Twenty-three people (68 percent) said they have been attending the Corps for 1-5 years (nineteen Officers for 79 percent and four Soldiers for 40 percent). Two people (6 percent) have attended the Corps for 5-10 years (two Soldiers for 20 percent). Two people (6 percent) have attended the Corps for 10-20 years (one Officer for 4 percent and one Soldier for 10 percent). Three people (9 percent) have attended the Corps all their lives (two Officers for 8 percent and one Soldier for 10 percent). I think clearly the two Officers misunderstood the intent of the question that it was for that particular Corps since they indicated on the survey in other places that they had been in those appointments less then five years. Then there were four people (12 percent) that had no response (two Officers for 8 percent and two Soldiers for 20 percent).

In question four, I am trying to determine the size of their Corps. I asked about the average attendance for a Sunday morning, since one of the criteria for the program was they had to average less then twenty-five. No one said that there were less then ten people attending the Corps on Sunday morning, which was a positive sign. Then there were sixteen people (47 percent) who said that there are between ten and twenty on Sunday morning (eleven Officers for 46 percent and five Soldiers for 50 percent) and thirteen people (38 percent) who said that there are between twenty and thirty on Sunday morning (nine Officers for 38 percent and four Soldiers for 40 percent). There were two people (6 percent) who said there are between thirty and forty people on Sunday morning (two Officers for 8 percent), while there were three people (9 percent) that said there are more than forty people on Sunday morning (two Officers for 8 percent and one Soldier for 10 percent).

My next question asked how many of their people were adults. There are some Corps that have tried to grow by filling their chapel with children. While children certainly need to hear the Word of God and be taught how to live the Christian life, they are not the foundation for building a church and for significant growth and service.

I want to know how many adults attend the Sunday morning worship services on average to determine how healthy the Corps is and how much potential there is for growth in the near future. Eleven people (32 percent) said that they had less then ten adults (seven Officers for 29 percent and four Soldiers for 40 percent). Ten people (29 percent) said there were ten to fifteen adults (seven Officers for 29 percent and three Soldiers for 30 percent). Eleven people (32 percent) said that there were sixteen to twenty adults (nine Officers for 38 percent and two Soldiers for 20 percent). One person (3 percent) said that there were twenty-one to twenty-five adults (one soldier for 10 percent), and one person (3 percent) said that there are more then twenty-six adults (one Officer for 4 percent).

Question seven asks the people describe the growth pattern at their Corps in the last twenty years. One person (3 percent) said that they had grown on an average of 10% or more in an average year (one Officer for 4 percent). Six people (18 percent) said that they had shown slow but steady growth of 1-5% growth per the average year (three Officers for 13 percent and three Soldiers for 30 percent). Seven people (21 percent) said that there had not been much of a change in the last 20 years (six Officers for 25 percent and one Soldier for 10 percent). Nine people (26 percent) said that they were slowly decreasing and losing people (six Officers for 25 percent and three Soldiers for 30 percent). Nine people (26 percent) said that their Corps was dying (seven Officers for 29 percent and two Soldiers for 20 percent), and two people (6 percent) gave no response (one Officer for 4 percent and one Soldier for 10 percent).

Eighteen people (56 percent) felt that things were decreasing and even dying at the Corps, while only one person (3 percent) felt there was significant growth at their Corps (one Officer for 4 percent).

One Soldier wrote that one problem they had in the last twenty years was "the decline happened as a result of a Corps split in two."

Over time as community changes, some of the members move further away from the Corps. Question nineteen looks to see how many in the Corps are part of the immediate community and how many now drive in.

Four people (12 percent) state they live less then one mile from the Corps (two Officers for 8 percent and two Soldiers for 20 percent). Ten people (29 percent) state that they live two to five miles away (seven Officers for 29 percent and three Soldiers for 30 percent). Fourteen people (41 percent) state they live six to ten miles away (eleven Officers for 46 percent and three Soldiers for 30 percent) and six people (18 percent) said they live eleven miles or more away from the Corps (four Officers for 17 percent and two Soldiers for 20 percent).

Clearly over 88 percent of the people live beyond the immediate area of the Corps, and this could be a problem in trying to connect with people in the community, or bringing friends from outside the community to the Corps.

Transportation is an important part of whether or not a person can get to the Corps. It can be a challenge if there is no public transportation. Question twenty-six deals with how do members of the Corps get to the services. Do most of the people drive their own vehicles or does the Corps have to pickup people in order to have them in the services?

Six people (18 percent) said that most of us drive and get there on their own (four Officers for 17 percent and two Soldiers for 20 percent). Eighteen people (53 percent) said that many of their people get there on their own and some get picked up (thirteen Officers for 54 percent and five Soldiers for 50 percent). Eleven people (32 percent) said that most of their people get picked up for our services (eight Officers for 33 percent and three Soldiers for 30 percent).

Twenty eight (82 percent) of the Corps must provide transportation to get some or most of their people their for Sunday morning. This can be an indication that public transportation is not available.

Question thirty-two deals with the participant's annual income, and since many of the responses are from Officers who salary is based on the Salvation Army Minute Book ⁽⁴⁸⁾, we will want to take a closer look at the Soldier's responses to get a feel for the Soldiers' income levels.

Two people (6 percent) stated that their annual income was less than $10,000.00 (two Soldiers for 20 percent). Fifteen people (54 percent) stated that their annual income was between $10,000.00 and 20,000.00 (nine Officers for 38 percent and six Soldiers for 60 percent). Eight people (24 percent) stated that their annual income was between $20,000.00 and 30,000.00 (eight Officers for 33 percent). Three people (9 percent) stated that their annual income was between $30,000.00 and 40,000.00 (one Officer for 4 percent and two Soldiers for 20 percent). Two people (6 percent) stated that their annual income was between $40,000.00 and 50,000.00 (two Officers for 8 percent). No one stated that their annual income was more then $50,000.00 a year and there were four (12 percent) people that gave no response (four Officers for 17 percent).

In reviewing the Soldiers that responded to the survey, 80 percent have an annual income of $20,000.00 a year or less, which would place many of them in the poverty levels. The Officers' income is established by the Minute book, and the variety of responses is due to some (12 percent) counting their housing and other benefits as income, while others (88 percent) did not.

Section Six: Corps Finances

In this section I deal with the finances of The Salvation Army Corps, whether that is from internal income (IE., Tithing, missionary projects) or external fund-raising such as Christmas Kettles or Direct Mail Appeal solicitation.

Question twenty-three deals with the Officers/Soldier's knowledge of the income of the congregation at large in their Corps. One person (3 percent) states that they are a middle class crowd. People have extra income for recreation, etc. (one Soldier for 10 percent). Three people (9 percent) state that most of their people make a comfortable living, they don't always have extra income for extras, but they get by (two Officers for 8 percent and one Soldier for 10 percent). Nineteen people (53 percent) state that things are tight for most people, but they get by (fourteen Officers for 59 percent and four Soldiers for 40 percent), and twelve people (35 percent) state that most of their people are not working. They are on welfare or Social Security (eight Officers for 33 percent and four Soldiers for 40 percent).

Based on these results most of the Corps (88 percent) are financially tight to unemployed and on welfare or Social Security. This would indicate that internal giving is not very high.

Question thirty, asks the participants if they contribute financially to the Corps. This could include giving an offering, a tithe, as a result of our mail appeal letter or giving at the kettles, etc.

Out of thirty-four responses 100 percent of the Officers said they contribute and 100 percent of the Soldiers contribute, even if their income is not very significant as indicated by the answers in question twenty-three.

Question thirty-one takes the contribution idea a step further. When I ask if they tithe (give 10%) to the Corps, the answer is close to 100 percent. Thirty-two people (92 percent) said yes they tithe and give ten percent (twenty-four Officers for 100 percent and eight Soldiers for 80 percent). Only two people (8 percent) said that they did not tithe (two Soldiers for 20 percent).

Those who responded may not necessarily have a great deal of money, but they demonstrate a level of commitment by tithing.

Question thirty-three goes from the personal contribution to an evaluation of how many people at the Corps tithe. This is information that Corps leaders would have if they sit on the Corps Council.

Fourteen people (41percent) said that one to five people tithe (fourteen Officers for 58 percent). Eight people (24 percent) said that six to ten people tithe (six Officers for 25 percent and two Soldiers for 20 percent). Four people (12 percent) said that ten or more people tithe at their Corps (three Officers for 13 percent and one Soldier for 10 percent). There were six people (18 percent) said they didn't know how many tithe (six Soldiers for 60 percent), and two people (6 percent) said no one tithed at their Corps (one Officer for 4 percent and one soldier for 10 percent).

The low number of people tithing would be a reflection of the low number of adults that worship within these Corps. However it is also an indication of the high level of commitment they exhibit by tithing.

Question thirty-six deals specifically with the finances of the Corps as far it total condition, with internal and external income.

Three people (9 percent) state the Corps is constantly in debt and they have to cut back on programs (three Officers for 13 percent). Seventeen people (50 percent) state they struggle financially, and they have to watch their spending (twelve Officers for 50 percent and five Soldiers for 50 percent). Nine people (26 percent) state they are able to get by, and can do extra things (seven Officers for 29 percent and two Soldiers for 20 percent). Three people (9 percent) state they have plenty of money for the Corps and programs (two Officers for 8 percent and One Soldier for 10 percent), while two people (6 percent) did not respond (two Soldiers for 20 percent), which may be an indication that they did not know.

Fifty-nine percent of the Corps appear to be struggling financially, 35 percent are able to get by and even have money for programming while 6 percent did not respond.

As a follow up to question thirty-six, I asked if they thought the Corps finances had an affect on their ability to grow as a congregation. Is there a relationship between money and growth?

Twenty-three people (68 percent) said they thought the financial condition of the Corps affected their ability to grow as a church (twenty Officers for 83 percent and three Soldiers for 30 percent), while eight people (24 percent) said they did not think the finances had an impact on their ability to grow (four Officers for 17 percent and four Soldiers for 40 percent). Three people (9 percent) did not know if there was any connection between finances and Corps growth (three Soldiers for 30 percent)

Question thirty-eight looks to see if Soldiers and Officers feel that lack of finances takes up a lot of time of the Officer. If the Officer is spending too much time on fund-raising and debt reduction, will it affect the Officers' ability to be an effective pastor and help facilitate Corps growth?

Seventeen people (50 percent) think the Officers spend too much time on fund-raising and not enough time for pastoring and Corps growth (seventeen Officers for 71 percent), while fourteen people (41 percent) said they did not notice any connection (six Officers for 25 percent and eight Soldiers for 80 percent). Three people (9 percent) did not respond to the question (one Officer for 4 percent and two Soldiers for 20 percent)

Seventeen (50 percent) said DHQ gave financial grants (thirteen Officers for 54 percent and four Soldiers for 40 percent). Eight said (24 percent) DHQ has provided mentoring (six Officers for 24percent and two Soldiers for 20 percent). Twelve (35 percent) said DHQ has provided help with conferences for personal improvement (nine Officers for 37 percent and three Soldiers for 30 percent). Eight (24 percent) said DHQ has provided consultants (six Officers for 24 percent and two Soldiers 20 percent). Seven (21percent) said DHQ has provided budget planning (five Officers for 20 percent and two Soldiers for 20 percent). Six (17 percent) said DHQ has provided program planning (four Officers for 17 percent and two Soldiers for 20 percent). Eight (24 percent) said DHQ has provided property planning (six Officers for 24 percent and two Soldiers for 20 percent). Twelve (35 percent) didn't know or respond (six officers for 24 percent and six Soldiers for 60 percent).

With many of the Corps not having lots of money, the need for funds to do evangelism and leadership training is often not there. One part of the Divisional Headquarters agreement from the Seminar was a pledge to make available special grants to the participating Corps when those grants could mean a major impact on the Corps' ability to develop in a particular area.

With the exception of the twelve people that did not respond or didn't know if DHQ was of any help, the remaining Corps listed three ways each that they felt DHQ had helped.

I have to admit that as I began this project I had some presumptions of what small Salvation Army Corps are like. This was based on my own experience of serving in several such Corps when I was younger. However, like all living things no two Corps are exactly alike. They share some similarities, but not always because of style but because of culture, and location.

Much of this work was based on what happened at sixteen small Corps in The Salvation Army of the Central Territory. These Corps were invited to participate in a program that wanted to help these small Corps grow, but to grow they had to become healthy first. Some of the survey participants say our Corps are dying, or at least they are continuing to get smaller. So many of us are brought up with the idea that bigger is better, and the biggest is the best. If you go to your first appointment as a new Lieutenant and your welcome meeting has nine in attendance (two are you and your wife), you are staring at an uphill battle. You can't help but have a morale problem, because you dream of ministry as a partnership with healthy, trained and equipped saints who are ready to win the world for Jesus, and instead you feel like you are a nursery worker in Heaven's back room. As many writers have said, to be serious about Corps growth and health, it is hard work. It is hard work for the Pastor/Officer and for the Soldiers. If it isn't a team effort, then the church will go no where but down, until it is completely dead.

As I review the six variables that I stated are barriers to growth and health, I found that not all my presumptions were accurate.

My first hypothesis was that Officers move too frequently, and this is a barrier to growth. As we reviewed the survey and research the common theme was it takes time to grow a church. It takes approximately four years to build a foundation and formulate the plan. Then the years afterwards are when the real growth will happen. Nearly everyone says they want longer stays, but the truth is that too many people don't think long enough. Administration says that we want to go from an average of three years to four years. My gut reaction is that this a plan for mediocrity, because four years still aren't a plan for growth.

As I reviewed the sixteen Corps, the commitment to keep the Officer in place for at least three years more (from 1997 to 2000) was not kept. I don't know if it was because Corps Officers requested to be moved or if Headquarters engineered the moves. The result was the same -- the Corps lost out. Three years is not a terribly long time for the Corps to build a foundation for growth, and it is not enough time for to experience significant results. I found it particularly disturbing that only 25 percent of the Corps has no changes, and that five Corps had three changes and one Corps had four changes.

As a result the Corps are not growing, they continue to be small. The short appointments are not just a negative factor in regards to Corps, it has a negative affect on the Officers and their family. When you move every two years, your family, your children never feel at home, because they can't take root because they will be moving soon.

As a result, I believe that my presumption about Officers moving too frequently affects the growth potential of a Corps is correct. We have a lot of work to do in the Army in regards to this.

This leads to my second hypothesis, that the low morale among Officers and Soldiers is a barrier to growth. Proverbs 29: 18 says, "Where there is no vision, the people perish." Many of the Corps Soldiers express the fear that a significant number of people are apathetic and that morale is suffering due to the lack of growth. Much is this because they see things dying. The Corps is not what it used to be. They still remember what they had, and they are grieving. It is like the Jews that returned to Jerusalem and saw that it was a shadow of its former glory, and they grieved instead of rejoicing.

Part of the Revitalization plan was to help the Officers and Soldiers formulate a plan to turn the Corps around. This plan included help from Headquarters in the form of support, resources and even funding. Some people expressed disappointment in what happened when they got home. One Soldier wrote, "I have really been disillusioned by the Small Corps Revitalization Process. I did not believe that either DHQ or THQ stood behind this program. Further, it seems that nothing much has been done other than meetings, sessions and paper work. A few cookies were baked and delivered, and one or two sessions of knocking on doors. No positive results."

Those who suffer from low morale, react in a negative and angry manner when they feel their hopes are dashed once again. Another Soldier writes, "I feel that the Salvation Army DHQ and THQ Officers have lost contact with their Soldiers and the small Corps. I also feel that some of the Officers should not have been Officers. Out the last three Officers we have had we lost Corps people. The xxxxxx left us in debt head over heals and we lost a few people. The xxxxx did a good job but were not ready to be Salvation Army Officers and DHQ didn't help and hardly never came around. When they left the Army, the Corps got stuck with bills they should not owe the xxxxxx and we also lost a couple more people and then we got Captain xxxxx and boy things with the Corps people went to pot. He/she should have been a DHQ Officer because all he/she cared about was a pay check. He/she even said to many people in our Corps that xxxxxxx was a hick town and he/she didn't need it. He/she up and quit the Army. He/she made the rules and expected everyone to follow. Well his/her ideas caused our Corps to suffer. With the new Majors our Corps will change for the better because they are chosen by God to do his will."

This last Soldier also wrote many comments throughout the survey revealing his anger with past Officers and DHQ. His opinion of DHQ was that they were out of touch, seldom visited the Corps, and all they did was waste money, and that they taught the Officers how to do the same. This Soldier wrote that the last three Officers were not very good for the Corps, but was very optimistic about the new Major. I am not sure about his commitment, because he wrote he tithed at times, but this is probably due to his concern that the Officer and DHQ were wasting money.

These two Soldiers obviously represent an extreme view and experience. But based on what they say they have experienced, you could understand why they feel disillusioned and anger.

However, an Officer wrote "I have a comment to make about the Corps in XXXXXXXX. One observation I made was, it depends on the Officers attitude toward the appointment. During my three years in XXXXXXXX, I assisted two different Officers. One had the opinion of sharing the Gospel and reaching out to the children. The second Officer was not pleased with the appointment and the Corps people knew that. I know the Corps at XXXXXXXX has begun to grow, which I am very grateful. XXXXXXXX has a stigma given to the Corps and the people believe they will never do any better."

Once morale is gone, it becomes hopeless. To lay a foundation for health and growth, hope must be restored. The people need a vision and a plan they can believe in. They need to know they and the Officer are not alone, so Headquarters is important to help turn things around.

Having been in small Corps, I remember Corps people getting behind our plan, but there was always the disclaimer. They always said things are great but ... when you move, it will probably go back to the way it was.

Officers also are suffering from low morale, and this is somewhat recognized by Territorial Headquarters. In March 1999, all the Officers in the Central Territory received a personal letter from then Commissioner Harold Hinson, our Territorial Commander. The letter addressed his concern for the lack of candidates entering the Training College to become Officers. He stated he believed part of the problem was that potential candidates were not seeing Officers who were experiencing joy in their officership. In a sense he said, if you could look or be happy, then others would want to join up. Many of us thought he missed the point. If they would address the low morale and lack of joy in the Officers, then the result would be the potential candidates would see the legitimate joy in his servants.

What are some of the reasons for low morale in Officers? One, is the frequent uprooting of their families. We have seen many friends who were qualified Officers leave the work, and many felt that Headquarters was not supportive of their ministry or did not support them in difficult situations. They did not feel that Headquarters was behind them. There are of course many unspoken reasons for leaving, and they are not always shared, and those shared are not always the real reason. But, the truth is the shepherds feel broken and hopeless, and no one is going after them or helping them. Jesus left the ninety-nine to go find the one. The shepherds need shepherds too.

My supposition that low morale is a barrier to growth has been documented by the survey results and by the many small Corps that have people that are broken and weary. We need to rebuild the hope of our Soldiers and our Officers. I believe leaving experienced Officers in their appointments longer will help the Corps grow, and it can help to rebuild broken spirits.

My third presumption dealt with our worship styles and theology might be a barrier to growth. My greater concern dealt with our non-sacramental theology, that we lose many potential members because they seek the sacraments as part of their Christian walk. Even though the number increased as the issue was addressed in different ways, apparently these Corps and Officers have not found this to be a barrier in their Corps. I had mentioned how there have been two International Commissions that have addressed the sacraments as part of our spiritual life, which may indicate on the world wide stage it is a bigger issue.

In regards to our worship styles, much of our worship is shaped by the music we worship by. Many of the Corps are using CD music in place of live music, which allows more variety, but is not the same as live music. There was also a high number of Corps that used piano, but many of those were one of the Officers, so the Corps themselves do not have people who can play. The style of music is predominantly traditional and conservative. Yet, in many of the growing ministries a more contemporary style is working well. However, there is room for many styles of worship, and that will draw people who enjoy similar styles.

My supposition that our theology is a barrier to growth does not appear to be correct on the basis of results of the survey. The belief that our worship style is a barrier to growth also is in error based on the survey results.

My fourth presumption dealt with poor buildings in poor locations was a barrier to growth. As I reviewed the survey results, I found for the most part that people felt their Corps buildings were located in the appropriate place for providing Social Services and for worship, even though a significant number felt the Corps was located in stagnant or dying areas.

The survey suggest that the buildings are located well at this time, but there is concern that it could be a hindrance. My supposition appears to be incorrect.

My fifth presumption states that the changing demographics within our Corps may be a barrier for growth. Some of the basic information shows that over half the people in the survey have been with the Corps less then ten years. It was a given that they were a small congregation, after all that is why they were in the Small Corps Revitalization program. Most of these Corps had less then fifteen adults in their worship services, which is a small poor of people to provide leadership and financial support. In fact, most of those surveyed (except the Officers) made less then $20,000.00 a year.

Over time as some of these communities changed, the Corps demographics have not. There are all white Corps in black communities, and Hispanic communities growing up around traditionally white Scandinavian communities. Those on the inside don't want to let those on the outside in. If the Church is to grow we have to compromise. In my own Corps, we have begun Hispanic service, just as the Waukegan Corps (one of the project Corps) has been assigned an Hispanic couple to minister to the 70 percent Hispanic community living by the Corps. As a result the white Officers are relocating nearby to minister to the old faithful in a new setting.

If we are to survive, we must be flexible whether that is multi-congregational ministries (for traditional and contemporary worship) or multi-culture/multi-language ministries for new cultures in our communities. My supposition that our changing demographics can be a barrier is correct, but it doesn't have to be. We can adjust and change with our communities without changing the message we have to preach. The love of Jesus can be preached in English, Spanish, Korean, etc.

My sixth and final presumption that poor finances is a barrier to growth is proven through the results of the survey. Most of the Corps are financially tight, due to low attendances and low income members. Even though our Corps receive financial support from the community for Social Services, there is a lack of funds for evangelism, discipleship and leadership training. The Corps state that they are struggling financially, which causes the Officers to spend too much time on fund-raising. One area of concern is that the Soldiers did not notice any connection between the time needed for fund-raising and the lack of time for evangelism and Corps growth.

One of the components of the Revitalization program was that Headquarters would provide financial grants to help the Corps with critical programs. For the Corps with a lack of funds this can make a significant impact to those with low morale. Last year, Territorial Headquarters offered Vision grants to Corps around the Territory. These grants were to be used for expanding ministry within the Corps. My own Corps received a grant of $20,000.00 to help hire an Hispanic Outreach worker to help minister to the growing Hispanic population around the Corps. We received another Vision grant for $2,500.00 to send two youth workers to the National Youth Workers Convention to help with youth evangelism and youth outreach.

Earlier this year, Commissioner Lawrence Moretz sent every Corps a grant of $30,000.00 to help with evangelism and outreach. My Corps applied most of that grant to help fund the second year of our newly established Hispanic Ministries, and a smaller portion was applied to starting a new youth outreach ministry to a local trailer park in our community. Even though we are not a small Corps, it made a significant impact in our ability to expand our ministry and it was a shot in the arm for morale. When Headquarters is willing to invest in your ministry and in your town, you can't help but be lifted up.

Many of these Corps are limited by a lack of funding, and it has been a barrier to growth. Hopefully, Headquarters will continue to offer grants to promote health, and growth in our Corps.

In conclusion, I believe that there are things that we must work on to promote good health in all our Corps. Many are weak and need to be strengthened. We have great potential in even the smallest Corps, but we need to give more to the front lines to help them grow. We need to celebrate the good things that are happening in our Army. There are great things happening in our Army, even in the smallest Corps. As we celebrate together we can lift spirits, lift morale and help propel all the Corps forward to battle.

In many ways, we are a sleeping giant. It is time for the Soldiers and Officers of the Corps, Divisional Headquarters and Territorial Headquarters to wake up and rush forward to battle.

LIST OF REFERENCES

• Barna, George, 1991,  User Friendly Churches, Ventura, CA: Regal Books.
• Freudenburg, Ben and Rick Lawrence, 1998, The Family Friendly Church, Loveland, CO: Vital Ministry (Part of Group Publishing).
• Gillaspie, Gerald W, 1974, The Restless Pastor, Chicago: Moody Press.
• Johnston, Jon Phillip, 1973, "A Value-Orientation Typology Of The Nazarene Pastorate  An Empirical Study" , Ph.D. thesis, Ohio State University.
• Malphurs, Aubrey, 1998, Planning Growing Churches For the 21^st Century, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
• McIntosh, Gary L. 1999, One Size Doesn't Fit All: Bringing Out the Best in Any Size Church, Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revel (A Division of Baker Book House Co).
• Moore, Mark H. 1996, "The Dynamics Of The Long Term Pastorate," Ph.D. thesis, Olivet Nazarene University.
• Rogers, Roy E., 1981 "Psychological Dimensions To The Pastor, His Family And The  Church", Ph.D. thesis, Olivet Nazarene University.
• Wagner, C Peter, 1984, Leading Your Church To Growth, Ventura, CA: Regal Books (Division of GL Publications).
• Warren, Rick, 1995, The Purpose Driven Church: Growth Without Compromising Your Message and Mission, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.
• Zunkel, C Wayne, 1983, Growing the Small Church: A Guide For Church Members, Elgin, IL: David C Cook Publishing CO.

APPENDIX A - Cover Letters for Survey

March 7, 2000

First Name Last Name, Rank
Address
City, State

Dear First Name,

I want to thank you in advance for taking a few minutes to help me. I know many of you are very busy with your work, families and ministering at the Corps. I would ask you to help me with an important task. The survey I am conducting is with Corps that have participated in the Small Corps Revitalization Program through THQ. This deals with Corps growth and some of the difficulties Salvation Army Corps have in growing.

I know some of you (Officers) may no longer be at the xxxxxx Corps, which has been part of the Small Corps Revitalization Program. But your input is very important, and I would ask you to still participate. It should take just a few minutes to complete the survey. If you have any comments you would like to make, please feel free to add that. For those who would like to see the final results of the survey, please fill out page 5 (OPTIONAL).

So, if you could just take a few minutes to fill out the survey, then place it in the enclosed addressed envelope and mail it to me.

Sincerely yours,

Captain Kjell Steinsland
Commanding Officer

APPENDIX B - Copy of Survey

This Survey is being conducted with Officers, Soldiers and friends of the Corps that participated in the THQ Small Corps Revitalization Program. The study deals with Corps Growth, and your participation is important. In order to complete the survey as part of my Thesis for Olivet Nazarene University, PLEASE MAIL BACK TO ME BY APRIL 15^th

NOTE: In the defense of my Thesis, the committee asked about the issue of women officers being discontent due to the lack of equal opportunity. They asked why the reasons for leaving the work or low morale did not include this issue. I  said that this Thesis was why Corps were not growing, not why officers were leaving. I mentioned that in all the responses with some writing additional comments, that that issue was not brought up. Perhaps this issue should be further studied and surveys conducted in the future.

If you have any questions or comments you can write to me at: Kjell_Steinsland@usc.salvationarmy.org.