americancongregations2010 - faith communities today

American Congregations 2010

Marjorie H. Royle

www . F a i t h C o mm u n i t i e s T o d a y . o r g

FACTs onWorship:2010

– 1 –Faith Communities Today FACTs on Worship: 2010

Worship is changing, particularly among Christianfaith families, although change generally is slow andincremental. Non-denominational congregations andthose from historically Black denominations haveled the way in introducing contemporary worshipstyles and instruments andother innovations, and mostother groups are followingin that change, to differingextents. Faith groups thatemphasize preserving thetradition such as RomanCatholics, Orthodox Christians,and congregations in thePeace Church family, are farless likely to have changedthan other groups, but even in these groups somechange has occurred. Some congregations are alsocombining elements from contemporary and verytraditional practices, such as is practiced by theEmerging Church movement.

FACTs onWorship: 2010

In the United States, people worship in a variety of ways, both among and within faith

families. Congregations differ greatly in the extent to which they have adopted innovations

such as drums, electric guitars and visual projection equipment, and practices such as

frequency of celebrating the Eucharist or kneeling. Some faith families, such as Orthodox

Christians, work to preserve tradition, valuing worship that is reverent and helps people feel

the presence of God. Others, such as Non-denominational and historically Black denominations,

enjoy innovation, emphasizing joy and new styles of music. However, when leaders of different

faith families describe their worship in terms such as thought-provoking or inspirational,

differences nearly disappear. Worship practices and worship styles seem to make little difference

in whether worship is seen as inspiring or helping people feel the presence of God. Apparently,

different kinds of worship are satisfying to different kinds of people, hardly surprising in an

increasingly diverse America.

Worship is changing in another way. As non-Christian groups such as Muslims and Baha’i increasetheir presence, and congregations of all faith groupsattempt to be more sensitive to the diversity of mem-bers’ schedules, people worship at many different

times from Friday throughSunday evening and in manydifferent languages.

Congregations that haveadopted innovative worshipand contemporary worshipstyles are significantly morelikely to have grown in thelast five years. However, thisrelationship is strongestamong Oldline and Conserva-

tive Protestant congregations and is not significantamong Roman Catholic, Non-denominational andhistorically Black Protestant families. Contemporaryworship seems particularly important in attractingyoung adults.

Worship is changing, partic-ularly among Christianfaith families, althoughchange generally is slow

and incremental.


Worship in the United States in 2010

Worship is the central, most quintessential act ofreligion and the major setting in which people congre-gate to grow in their faith. The 2010 FACT surveyprovides a snapshot of the United States at worshipacross denominations and faith groups. It includesresponses from 11,077 randomly chosen individualcongregations from over 100 separate faith groups,including most major Protestant groups, RomanCatholics, Orthodox Christians, Conservative andReform Jews, Muslims, and Bahá’í. The picture ofworship that emerges from this mosaic of groups isone of both variety and similarity.

Worship is no longer confined to Sunday morningat 11:00 AM, even for Christians. Although as Figure1 shows, Sunday morning is still the most commontime for worship with nearly three-fourths of congre-gations having one or more services at that time, 2%worship on Friday evenings (mostly Muslims and Jews),8% worship on Saturdays (generally Jews, Seventh-dayAdventists and Roman Catholics, but some Protestantsas well), and 16% worship on Sunday afternoons orevenings. Congregations that share a building repre-sent about a third of this last group. About two thirdsof the remainder are congregations offering an addi-tional evening service for their members, while a thirdare those with an additional early afternoon service.

While the majority of congregations in Figure 2(59%) hold only one service per weekend, over aquarter (27%) hold two services and another 14% holdthree or more. Multiple opportunities for worshipare more typical of groups with larger numbers ofconstituents, such as Roman Catholics and Muslims.

Although mega-churches with over 1,000 in atten-dance garner media attention, most congregationsworship in much smaller groups, as can be seen inFigure 3. About half of all congregations report havingfewer than 100 attendees in worship on any givenweekend. At the other extreme, 10% report havingmore than 500 in worship.This does not mean that10% of all congregations have a worship service with500 or more in attendance, however.Because about40% of congregations report having more than oneweekly service, the number attending are dividedamong the number of services.

Attendees have no trouble finding a place to sit inmost congregations, as can be seen in Figure 4. Witha median average attendance of 105 and a medianseating capacity of 225, most congregations have seats

Figure 2: Number ofWeekend Services

Figure 1: WhenWeWorship

Friday2% Saturday

8%

SundayAM1 service54%

SundayAM2 services16%

SundayAM3 or moreservices4%

SundayEvening16%

Five or More2%

One59%

Two27%

Three9%

Four3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

Figure 3: Attendance atWeekendWorship Services

%of

Con

gregations

50 andUnder

51 to100

101 to250

251 to500

501 to1,000

Over1,000

27%

22%

28%

13%

6%4%

AverageWeekend Attendance% of Congregations

% of Congregations


enough for all. When asked about their seating capac-ity, most leaders agreed, with 40% saying their seatingwas “just about right,” and only 12% saying they hadless seating capacity than they need and 7% sayingmuch less. Too much space is a much greater problemthan not enough, with 26% saying they have morethan they need and another 15% saying they havemuch more.

Finding a place to park is a bigger issue thanfinding a place to sit, with about a third of all congre-gations needing more parking. Fifteen percent ofcongregations say they have much less parking thanthey need, and another 19% have less than they need,although 16% and 9%, respectively, have more andmuch more than they need.

US congregations worship in an amazing numberof languages. About 10% of congregations use alanguage other than English at least occasionally intheir worship. About half of these are liturgicallanguages, including Hebrew, Latin, Greek, Slavonic,Arabic, and Persian. Half are languages used toreach out to new immigrants. Spanish is the mostcommon second language with 5% of congregationssaying that they use it in worship. In addition, congre-gations reported using Korean and 22 other south andeast Asian languages, 8 languages from the PacificIslands, 15 European, 13 African, 5 Native American,2 Caribbean, and American Sign Language for a totalof 66 different languages. While this number is stillwell below the estimated 400 languages spoken in theUS, it undoubtedly would be larger if all US congre-gations had been included and represents a significanteffort to reach out to immigrant communities. AmongProtestants, twice as many conservative as Oldline

Protestants report using a language other than English,with nearly 10% of Conservatives, 6% of Non-denominational Protestants and nearly 5% of OldlineProtestants reporting use of another language. About7% of Peace churches and Holiness denominationsreport using another language, while 20% of Seventh-day Adventist congregations do so.

Worship Wars and Other Changes

The last twenty years in the United States haveseen great changes in worship from Traditional toContemporary, as, in some places, praise bands withelectronic keyboards, drums, and electric guitars havereplaced organs and choirs, and worship now includesmultimedia presentations, rather than only the spokenword from the pulpit. Some have called these theWorship Wars, as different generations with differenttastes in music have struggled to coexist. Some congre-gations have started new services that are very differentin style from their traditional offerings, while othershave experimented with blended services that includeelements of each.

The Emerging Church movement has alsoappeared on the scene, advocating Alternative Worshipas opposed to contemporary styles. This emphasizescelebration in worship, which often includes contem-porary elements as well as a return to traditions of theearly Church. Such worship deemphasizes the roleof the leader, with informal discussions or stories inplace of sermons, and popular music in place oftraditional hymns. It also includes both ancient ritualand newly-created multi-sensory experiences.

The FACT 2010 survey provides an opportunity tosee how this time of change has affected US congre-gations. When asked how much they had changedin the last five years, nearly half of all congregationssaid they had not changed at all according to Figure5. Most who had changed (40% of all congregations)reported changing only a little or somewhat, while6% changed a lot and 7% added a new service. Ofcourse, for some, major changes may have occurredmore than five years ago. Nevertheless, the last fiveyears were not a time of great change.

Change, when it occurs, is not without its costs.When congregational leaders were asked about conflictin their congregations in the last five years in a varietyof areas, 42% reported conflict over how worship isconducted. Although two-thirds of these reported thatthe conflict was not serious, 27% of those reportingconflict (and 13% of all congregations) said that

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Figure 4: Lots of Seats%of

Con

gregations

100 andUnder

101 to200

201 to300

301 to400

Over400

15%

33%

22%

11%

19%

Seating Capacity


some people left as a result. In general, conflict washigher among congregations that had made morechanges, as can be seen in Figure 6, with 48% ofthose making small changes also reporting someconflict, and 60% of those changing their worshipstyle a lot reporting conflict. Even adding a new anddifferent service was related to conflict, with 60% ofthose congregations reporting at least some conflict.

Although change in worship certainly is relatedto conflict, several interpretations are possible, andall are probably valid for some congregations. First,in some congregations, the worship changes couldhave occurred before the conflict, while in othersthe changes could have resulted from conflict overworship. Second, the conflict over worship may havebeen only a part of a larger conflict. A new pastormay have made changes in several areas including

worship style. The conflict may have originated withthe change in leadership, but been played out inmany areas, including worship. In fact, two thirds ofthose reporting conflict over worship also reportedconflict over finances or program priorities or thepastor’s leadership style. Also, while adding a newservice with a different style might be seen as a wayto make changes while keeping the status quo forthose who prefer it, levels of conflict in congregationsadding a new service were just as high as in thosemaking major changes.

Finally, 29% of the leaders who reported that theyhad made no changes in worship in the past five yearsalso reported conflict over how worship is conducted.Although, for most, this conflict was not serious, somepeople left the congregation as a result in 28% of theseconflicted congregations (8% of all congregations notmaking changes). Not making any changes in worshipdoes not necessarily avoid conflict and has its costs, aswell. Because worship is such a central act of religion,worship is a prime area for conflict, regardless ofchanges.

The majority of congregations are not using theopportunity of multiple services to tailor them todifferent groups, as can be seen in Figure 7. Abouthalf (52%) have only one service. Another 19% havea second service that is very similar or identical tothe first. This alternative seems most common forlarge congregations, particularly those with smallersanctuaries. However, the remaining 29% offer some-what (17%) or very (12%) different services. Of these,14% include languages other than English, othersdifferences in style, others, perhaps a third of them,an evening service that compliments the morning one.

Figure 5: Not a Lot of Change

No Change47%

Changed aLittle22%

ChangedSomewhat18%

Changed a Lot6%

Added a Different Service7%

% of Congregations

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 6: Change and Conflict OverWorship

%of

Con

gregations

No Change A LittleChange

ChangedSomewhat

A Lot ofChange

Added aDifferentService

29%20%

8%2%

48%

Change toWorship Style

Any Conflict

Not Serious

People Left

Withheld Money

Staff Left

2%

33%

13%

2%2% 2%2% 7%3% 4%3%

55%

38%

17%

60%

37%

25%

60%

31%23%


When asked to describe worship in terms of sixcharacteristics, most respondents said that Reverent,Joyful, Thought-Provoking, Inspirational, and Filledwith God’s Presence described their worship well orvery well, as can be seen in Figure 8. These quitepositive descriptions are not surprising because mostsurvey respondents probably were the clergy leadersof the congregations. Respondents were far less likelyto say that their worship was Innovative, althoughover a third (38%) agreed. Ratings of all of thesecharacteristics except Innovative were lower incongregations experiencing conflict over worshipthan in others. In some cases, conflict may havediminished people’s worship experiences, while inothers, less effective worship may have initiated theconflict. Although ratings of Reverent, Inspirationaland Filled with God’s Presence were high in nearly allcongregations, they were slightly lower in congrega-tions that had made changes to their worship style inthe last five years, while ratings of Joyful, Thought-Provoking and Innovative were slightly higher incongregations making changes.

Correlations were high among the items, indicatingthat people believe that worship can be thought-provoking and innovative and still be reverent, forexample, or both reverent and joyful. Although thoseusing contemporary music were more likely to saythat their worship was joyful and those having anorgan and choir were more likely to say their worshipwas reverent, many believed that contemporary musicwith projection screens was both reverent andinspirational. And worship that was filled with God’spresence included all kinds of music.

Differences by Faith Family

Of course, people do not worship “in general,”they worship within a specific faith tradition. Faithfamilies differ widely in how they worship, althoughmany similarities exist. To examine some of thesedifferences and similarities, participating congregationswere grouped into the following categories or faithfamilies:1 Oldline Protestants, Conservative Protestants,Peace churches, Holiness denominations, congrega-tions affiliated with the historically Black denomina-tions, non-denominational Protestants, Roman Catholic,Orthodox Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Baha’i.Because each faith group tailored their survey to theirown practices, not all questions were asked of everygroup, and because FACT policy is that interpretationsof data within denomination or faith group are the

Figure 7: Not a Lot of Difference, Either

One Service52%

Identical19%

SomewhatDifferent17%

VeryDifferent12%

% of Congregations

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 8: Worship is Meaningful,not Innovative

%of

Con

gregations

Inno

vative

Reverent

Joyful

Tho

ught-

Provok

ing

Inspriational

Filledwith

God

’sPresence

38%

71%81% 81% 81% 84%

1. Oldline Protestants included American Baptist, Disciples ofChrist, Episcopal, Evangelical Lutheran, Reformed Church inAmerica, United Presbyterian, United Methodist, UnitarianUniversalist, United Church of Christ. Conservative Protestantsincluded Assembly of God, Southern Baptist, Christian andMissionary Alliance, Church of God, Missouri Synod Lutheran,Christian Reformed, the Seventh-day Adventist Church andmany other smaller denominations. Peace churches includedQuakers, Mennonites, Moravian, and Church of the Brethren.Holiness denominations were mostly Nazarene, but also includedother members in the Christian Holiness Partners. HistoricallyBlack churches included those from the African Methodist family,the National Baptist Convention, Church of God in Christ, andother non-Oldline Protestant groups where the congregationalmembership was more than 75% African-American. Non-denom-inational Protestants included congregations labeling themselvesas such or as community churches, most of which were largeand half of which were formed since 1980. Jewish congregationsincluded both Conservative and Reform, although these representdifferent traditions within Judaism.


privilege of the group itself, only Christian faithfamilies, not individual denominations or faith groups,are included in most of the remaining charts anddiscussion of differences.

Because faith families differ in several of thecharacteristics that are related to differing worshipstyles, such as congregational size, region of thecountry, type of community, average age of members,time since the congregation was founded, and ageof clergy leader, among others, the effects of thesefactors must be examined within family.

One of the largest differences among faith familiesis in the size of the gatherings in which they worship.The first column in the table in the Appendix shows themedian2 average attendance for each denomination orfaith partner group. Figure 9 shows the differences inaverage attendance within and between faith groups.In this figure, the bar represents the middle half of therange of attendance for congregations in each faithgroup, with the line representing the median. ForConservative Protestants, for example, the bottomquarter of congregations have fewer than 55 attendees,the next quarter have between 55 and 120 attendees,the next quarter have between 120 and 250 attendees,and the top quarter have more than 250 attendees.Roman Catholics and Muslims report the largestcongregations and the greatest variation in congrega-tional size, with Baha’i the smallest. Among Protestants,Conservative groups report the largest average atten-dance, Holiness groups the smallest, with Peacechurches and Oldline Protestants nearly as small.

Even among Christians, faith families differ greatlyin worship practices. For example, although theEucharist is a key sacrament in Christianity, not all

Christian faith groups include it in worship with equalfrequency, as can be seen in Figure 10. Nearly allcongregations include it in worship at least sometimes.The exception is the Peace Churches, in which only56% include the Eucharist at least sometimes. ThePeace church group includes Quakers, some ofwhom do not recognize the sacrament. Among otherChristian groups, most Roman Catholics and Orthodoxalways include the practice, while much smallerpercentages of Protestants always include it.

Faith families differ greatly in their use of contem-porary music and visual projection equipment can beseen in Figures 11 through 13. Although drums andelectric guitars and bass both are used in contemporarypraise bands, they have been adopted at different ratesby different families. Drums are a common elementin historically Black denominations, with over 60%of congregations saying they always use them andanother 15% using them at least sometimes. About60% of Non-Denominational Protestants use drumsat least sometimes, and Conservative and Holinessfamilies are nearly as high. Orthodox churches do notuse them at all.

Non-denominational and Holiness churches leadin the use of electric guitars or bass, with a majority,over 60%, using them at least sometimes. ConservativeProtestants and Roman Catholics are next, and, again,Orthodox churches do not use them at all.

Although Oldline Protestants are more likely touse visual projection equipment than they are to use

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Figure 9: AttendanceVaries by Faith Family

Average

WeeklyAttendance

Oldline

Protestant

Con

servative

Protestant

Non

-Denom

inat’l

Black

Protestant

Peace

Holiness

Catho

lic

Ortho

dox

LDS

Jewish

Muslim

Baha’i

2. The median is the middle number when all congregations areranked. Half the congregations are smaller and half larger. Themedian is less affected by a few very large or very small numbersthan is the mean, the statistic more often used as an average.

Inter-quartileRange (25%-75%)

Median (figureabove line)

80120 100 121 81 68

567

110188

98

250

12


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 10: Frequency of Eucharist

Percentof

Chu

rches

Celebratin

gEu

charist

Oldline

Protestant

Con

servative

Protestant

Non

-Denom

inat’l

Black

Protestant

Peace

Holiness

Catho

lic

Ortho

dox

Sometimes

Often

Always

28%

48%

21%

22%

40%

33%

22%

44%

29%

32%

46%

16%

9%

24%

23%

6%

40%

47%

87%

11%1%

87%

13%1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 12: Who Uses Electric Guitars/Bass?

Percentof

Chu

rches

Using

Electricguitars/Bass

Oldline

Protestant

Con

servative

Protestant

Non

-Denom

inat’l

Black

Protestant

Peace

Holiness

Catho

lic

Ortho

dox

Sometimes

Often

Always

14%6%12%

34%

8%8%

38%

12%

12%

27%

6%9%

21%

2%10%

39%

6%

16%

9%

16%

20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 11: Who Uses Drums?

Percentof

Chu

rches

Using

Drums

Oldline

Protestant

Con

servative

Protestant

Non

-Denom

inat’l

Black

Protestant

Peace

Holiness

Catho

lic

Ortho

dox

Sometimes

Often

Always

16%

7%

15%

38%

8%8%

41%

13%6%

61%

8%6%

21%

6%11%

38%

8%7%

7%10%

25%

1%


drums or electric guitars, their use at least sometimes at44% still trails behind Holiness, Non-denominationaland Conservative Protestants, in which over half theirchurches always use them. Use among RomanCatholics is not common, perhaps partially because ofthe larger size and architecture of their sanctuaries,and Orthodox do not use them at all.

In general, Non-denominational Protestants are theleaders in adopting contemporary worship. Althoughthis group is very similar to Conservative Protestants, itdiffers in several significant ways. Non-denominationalcongregations are newer than others, with 17% foundedsince 2000, as compared to 11% of ConservativeProtestants and only 3% of Mainline Protestants. Non-denominational Protestants have somewhat largercongregations, larger sanctuaries, more services, and

more services that are very different from each otherper week. They are much more theologically conser-vative than the Oldline, with 93% describing them-selves as somewhat or very conservative, as comparedto 47% of the Oldline and 82% of Conservatives. Theyare more likely to be located in the West. They alsohave the highest percentage of young adults of anyfaith family.

Faith families differ greatly in how innovative theyconsider their worship to be, as can be seen in Figure14. In addition, the Appendix compares participatingdenominations and faith group partners on a compos-ite measure of Innovative and Contemporary Worship.This measure combines information about whether acongregation uses drums and/or electric guitars or basswith the self-rating of innovativeness. In Figure 14,

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 13: Who Uses Projection Equipment?

Percentof

Chu

rches

Using

Projectio

nEq

uipm

ent

Oldline

Protestant

Con

servative

Protestant

Non

-Denom

inat’l

Black

Protestant

Peace

Holiness

Catho

lic

Ortho

dox

Sometimes

Often

Always

27%

4%10%

55%

9%9%

62%

9%8%

22%

6%7%

39%

3%13%

63%

13%6%

6%

1%5% 1% 1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 14: Some Have InnovativeWorship

Percentof

Chu

rches

DescribingW

orship

asInno

vative

Oldline

Protestant

Con

servative

Protestant

Non

-Denom

inat’l

Black

Protestant

Peace

Holiness

Catho

lic

Ortho

dox

QuiteWell

VeryWell

10%

23%

14%

23%

19%

27%

21%

33%

13%

11%

5%

31%

8%

16%8%6%


Historically Black Protestant denominations considerthemselves the most innovative, followed by Non-Denominational Protestants, with Conservative andOldline Protestants and Holiness groups next. TheChristian faith groups most dedicated to preservingtradition, Orthodox and Roman Catholic, are leastlikely to say they are innovative. Peace churches, thatpreserve a different tradition, also are less likely tosay they are innovative.

However, innovation has a different meaning indifferent contexts. Congregations in different faithfamilies consider different elements in worship to beinnovative. Congregations that rated their worship asinnovative were compared with those saying they werenot innovative to learn how they differed. AmongOldline Protestants, Conservative Protestants, andRoman Catholics, innovative congregations were muchmore likely than others to include drums, electricguitar or bass, and projection equipment in worship.For example, 59% of the Old-line Protestant leaderswho said that “innovative” described their worshipvery well included drums at least “sometimes,” whileonly 19% of those that said they were not at all inno-vative did so. Among Black Protestants, however,drums were not considered to be particularly innova-tive. Among Non-Denominational Protestants, drums,electric guitars, and visual equipment all were notconsidered to be innovative because the vast majorityof congregations use them.

Similarly, as Figure 15 illustrates, kneeling isseen as innovative in Non-denominational and BlackProtestant groups, but not at all among RomanCatholics, for whom kneeling is a part of most services.It is common for Orthodox Christians as well, although

not included as frequently. Over half of historicallyBlack Protestant groups also kneel during worship, asdo nearly as many from the Holiness family. Kneelingis done in about a third of other Protestant groups,except the Peace churches who generally do not kneel.

In spite of quite different worship styles, leadersof most congregations rate their worship as joyful,reverent, inspirational, and thought-provoking. Differ-ences, although statistically significant, are not large.Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian congregationsare more likely than others to rate their worship asreverent and historically Black churches are more likelyto rate their worship as joyful, but the vast majority ofleaders of all congregations say that these character-istics describe their worship “quite” or “very well.”As Figure 16 displays, most congregations in all faithfamilies say that their worship is “Filled with a senseof God’s presence,” although Orthodox Christianleaders are most likely to agree.

Size affects worship in several ways. Larger con-gregations have more resources with which to en-rich the worship experience, so larger congregationsare more likely to use drums, electric guitars, and vi-sual projection equipment. Larger congregations alsohave more people to support multiple services,which may be different in style, and also to offerworship in different languages. However, when con-gregations were examined within faith tradition,most size differences were small and most of the dif-ferences were found between the smallest congrega-tions and all others. In general, even within faithfamilies, leaders of larger congregations tended torate worship as higher in being reverent, innovative,joyful, inspirational, thought-provoking, and filled

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 15: Some Include Kneeling

Percentof

Chu

rches

ThatKneel

Oldline

Protestant

Con

servative

Protestant

Non

-Denom

inat’l

Black

Protestant

Peace

Holiness

Catho

lic

Ortho

dox

Sometimes

Often

Always

11%9%

17%

11%10%

15%

8%8%

22%

27%

19%

17%

4%9%

8%9%

31%86%

4%3%

28%

23%

26%


with God’s presence. However, differences werequite small, much smaller than differences in the useof drums or projection equipment.

In most faith groups, innovation in worship is moretypical of the West and South than it is of the North-east. Congregations in the South are more likely thanothers to include choirs and children in worship, andalso to kneel during worship and describe theirworship as both joyful and reverent. Innovation alsois present more in urban areas, downtown and botholder and newer suburbs, and less in rural areas.However, because the mix of faith groups varies widelyin different parts of the country and in different typesof communities, untangling the effects of denomina-tional tradition, geographic region and communitysetting is difficult.

In some faith families, newer congregations,particularly those founded since 2000 are much more

likely to have contemporary worship. In Figure 17, forexample, the newest congregations among OldlineProtestants were much more likely to use drums andguitars, with those founded since 1976 next most likely.For Conservative and Non-denominational Protestantsand Roman Catholics, both congregations foundedsince 1976 and the newest ones were more likelythan older ones to do so. For Black congregations,those founded between 1976 and 1999 were the mostlikely to do so. Use of projection equipment wassimilar, although no new Roman Catholic congrega-tions used it often or always. In each of these faithfamilies, leaders of newer congregations also weremore likely than those founded before 1976 todescribe worship as innovative.

Across faith families, congregations with a highproportion of older members are far less likely thanothers to include innovations and more likely to use

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 16: Worship is FilledWith God’s Presence

Percentof

Chu

rches

DescribingW

orship

asFilledW

ithGod

’sPresence

Oldline

Protestant

Con

servative

Protestant

Non

-Denom

inat’l

Black

Protestant

Peace

Holiness

Catho

lic

Ortho

dox

QuiteWell

VeryWell

33%

49%

41%

42%

42%

47%

51%

31%

37%

48%

28%

51%

31%

56%

69%

25%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 17: Newer Churches Have Contemporary Music

Percentof

Chu

rches

With

Drumsor

Guitar

OldlineProtestant

ConservativeProtestant

Non-Denominat’l

BlackProtestant

Catholic

Since 2000

1979 – 99

Before 1979

66%

43%

24%

62%59%

46%

73%72%

44%

58%

79%

69%

39%40%

29%


the organ in worship. Worship in congregations witholder members was more likely to be described asreverent, and less likely to be described as joyful.The relationship was reversed for those with higherpercentages of younger members.

Younger clergy also are more likely to incorporatecontemporary music, projection equipment, and otherinnovations in worship. However, as Figures 18 and19 show, the youngest leaders are more likely to useprojection, but those between 36 and 45 are most likelyto use contemporary music. This may be because theyoungest leaders are more likely to serve small or ruralcongregations that are less open to such innovations.Also, Roman Catholic and historically Black denomi-nations do not fit this pattern. In these families, olderclergy, who may be serving larger congregations, aremore likely to report having these innovations.

Changes in Worship Since 2000

Decreasing average attendance is the biggest differ-ence in worship since 2000, and the one that drivesmany others. This decrease in attendance was wide-spread. The median size of the congregation decreasedin every Christian denominational group over theperiod, although it increased for Muslims.

Figure 20 shows that the decreases among OldlineProtestants occurred largely among congregations inthe mid-range of size. This is important because thesecongregations are most likely to begin or to stopholding a second service, a significant opportunityfor change and innovation. In 2000, 59% of Oldlinecongregations reported having only one service; by2010 the percentage had increased to 63%. Likewise,Conservative Protestants, Peace churches, Holinessdenominations and Adventists all reported morecongregations with only one service in 2010 than in

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 18: Younger Leaders Use ProjectionPercentof

Chu

rches

With

Projectio

n

OldlineProtestant


Non-Denominat’l

BlackProtestant

Catholic

45%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 19: Younger Leaders Use Drums/Guitars

Percentof

Chu

rches

With

Drumsor

Guitar

OldlineProtestant


Non-Denominat’l

BlackProtestant

Catholic

22 – 35

36 – 45

46 – 55

56 – 65

Over 65

Age of Leader

35%37%29%

19%

73%66%

74%

64%

41%

100%

74%78%

69%

51%

23%

33%31%26%

39%

0%3%

7% 7% 7%

22 – 35

36 – 45

46 – 55

56 – 65

Over 65

Age of Leader

26%

36%33%

27%

13%

43%

62%58%

49%

38%34%

69%66%63%

31%

55%

81%

66%

77%

65%

21%25%19%

30%

38%


2000, although most of these differences were small.Of those having more than one service, however,more congregations in 2010 than in 2000 reportedthat they were very different in style.

In A Decade of Change, Roozen reports largeincreases between 2000 and 2010 in both Contempo-rary worship (using drums and electric guitar orbass) (see Figure 21) and leaders’ ratings ofworship as innovative, both overall and amongOldline and Conservative Protestant families.When faith families were examined in greaterdetail, the picture was somewhat more nuanced.For example, when asked about whether andwhat kinds of changes they had made in worshipin the past five years, faith families differedgreatly in how much change they reported, as can beseen in Figure 22. Although Conservative Protestant

and Non-denominational Protestant churches are morelikely to include contemporary elements in worship,Holiness and Oldline Protestants reported making themost changes in recent years, including adding a new,different service. Because Conservative and Non-denominational congregations have led the way in

contemporary worship, they may have changedalready, while Oldline congregations are movingtoward more contemporary worship. Congre-gations from historically Black denominations,however, reported the greatest amount ofchange, as well as the highest use of drumsand the most innovation. For them, innovationappears to be ongoing. Orthodox Christian,Peace churches and to a lesser extent Roman

Catholic and Non-denominational churches reportedthe least change.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Figure 20: CongregationsAre SmallerPercentof

Con

gregations

50 andUnder

51 to100

101 to250

251 to500

501 to1,000

Over1,000

20102000

Average Attendance—Oldline Congregations Only

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Figure 21: ContemporaryWorshipContinues to Surge

Percentof

Con

gregations

Often

orAlwaysUsing

ElectricGuitars

orDrums

Total OldlineProtestant

EvangelicalProtestant

20102000

29%

43%

13%

25%

35%

51%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 22: ChangeVaries

Percentof

Chu

rches

MakingChanges

Oldline

Protestant

Con

servative

Protestant

Non

-Denom

inat’l

Black

Protestant

Peace

Holiness

Catho

lic

Ortho

dox

New/Different Service

Changed a Lot

Changed Somewhat

21%

6%11%

18%

5%6%

13%5%8%

26%

12%5%

11%24%

8%9%

12%3%9%

4%4%


One mark of the style of worship espoused by theEmerging Church is inclusion of both old traditions,such as kneeling, and new ones, such as multimediapresentations. FACT 2010 results suggest that this mixis occurring and probably increasing, particularlyamong Oldline, Conservative, and Non-denominationalProtestants. About 11% of Non-denominationalProtestants and 12% of Conservative Protestantscombine use of projection equipment with the practiceof kneeling, and 10% and 15% respectively combineprojection with weekly celebration of the Eucharist.In Oldline congregations, 4% combine the practiceof kneeling and 7% combine weekly celebration ofthe Eucharist with use of projection equipment. Theuse of projection equipment along with these moretraditional practices has increased slightly since 2000.In addition, the newest congregations in Oldline,Conservative and Non-denominational Protestantfamilies and those with the youngest clergy are morelikely than others to include both kneeling andprojection equipment.

The number of languages in which worship isheld appears to have increased in the last decade,although this conclusion can only be tentative becausethis question was not asked of all faith groups in 2000.Congregations in 2000 reported using only 28 otherlanguages, as compared to 66 languages in 2010, anumber that likely would have increased had allcongregations responded to the question. Given thedramatic increase since 2000 in immigrant congrega-tions documented in the Decade of Change report,the number of languages spoken in worship is verylikely to have increased greatly as well.

Worship and Congregational Growthand Vitality

Hadaway reported in FACTs on Growth:2010 thatseveral characteristics of worship were positively relatedto growth in attendance between 2005 and 2010.Congregations with multiple worship servicesper week were more likely to be growing,with more worship opportunities attractingmore attendees and more attendees supportingmore worship services. Congregations withworship that is described as joyful, innovativeand inspirational, as well as thought-provokingand filled with a sense of God’s presence weremore likely than others to have grown between2005 and 2010. The use of drums, electric guitars,and projection equipment all were positively related

to growth, as can be seen in Figure 23. In addition,involving children and youth in worship was relatedto growth.

When examined separately by faith families, theserelationships were strongest among Oldline andConservative Protestants, and weaker for other groups.Innovative worship was NOT significantly related togrowth for Non-denominational Protestants, perhapsbecause most have innovative worship, and for RomanCatholics and historically Black denominations.

Contemporary music and innovative worship bothwere particularly helpful in attracting young adults.Congregations that included these elements in worshiphad a significantly higher percentage of young adultsages 18 to 35 in them than those that did not. Thisrelationship was stronger than that between innovativeworship and overall growth in attendance. It also wasfound in every faith family except Non-denominationalChristians (probably because most Non-denominationalcongregations were high both in innovation and thepercentage of young adults). Also, contemporary musichad a bigger effect on the presence of young adultsthat it did on overall growth, which was more affected

by innovation in general. Of course, makingworship more innovative and adding morecontemporary music also may be easier to doin congregations with a large number of youngadults than in congregations with many seniorcitizens.

Not all congregations may be in a goodposition to grow, due to factors such as loca-

tion, community growth or decline, and age ofcongregation. Congregational vitality is anothermeasure of congregational health and strength, and

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Lowest Low Moderate High Highest

%of

Con

gregations

Growing

18%

28%

Score onWorship Scale (Visual ProjectionEquipment, Drums, Electric Guitar, & Innovation)

37%

Figure 23: InnovativeWorship Scaleand Growth

46%

56%


congregations that are not growing in attendancemay still serve their members and their communitiesin a vital way. On the FACT 2010 surveys, this senseof congregational vitality was measured by havingleaders rate their congregations on whether they are“spiritually vital and alive.” The last column in the tablein the Appendix lists the percentage of congregationswithin each participating denomination and faith groupwho rate themselves as having high vitality. As Figure24 shows, congregations whose worship was describedas innovative were far more likely than others to berated as spiritually vital and alive. Across faith families,leaders who rated their congregations high in vitalityalso described their worship as joyful, inspirational,filled with God’s presence and other positive charac-teristics. Figure 24 also shows that congregations withcontemporary worship elements were more likely thanothers to be rated as vital, although the relationshipwas not as strong.

All in all, a quality worship experience is importantfor congregations that want to grow. Particularly inOldline and Conservative Protestant families, congrega-tions that provide a solid worship experience, includ-ing worship that is joyful, inspiring, and full of a senseof God’s presence, are more likely to be spirituallyvital and growing in numbers. Because our culture ischanging, congregations may need to change andinnovate in their worship to create such an experience.And if congregations hope to attract and incorporateyounger adults, that change may need to includedrums, electric guitars, and visual projection equip-ment. However, faith tradition is important. Drumsand projection screens do not fit in every tradition

or with every age group. Innovation and changeneed to occur within a congregation’s faith tradition.Finding the balance between the two is one of themajor challenges of worship in the 21st Century.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Figure 24: InnovativeWorship PaysVitality Dividend

NeitherInnovative NorContemporary

Contemporary,Not Innovative

Innovative, NotContemporary

Both Innovativeand

Contemporary

Percentof

Con

gregations:

HighSpiritu

alVitality

17%

23%

38%

47%


AppendixFACT 2010 Denomination and Faith Group Partner SurveysNamed partner conducted or contracted for survey. For Partner contact information and linksto partner reports on their respective surveys see www.faithcommunitiestoday.org.

Worship and Congregational Growth and VitalityMedian Innovative & HighAverage Contemporary Spiritual

Attendancea Worshipb Vitalityc

80 . . . . . . . . . . .American Baptist Churches USA O,1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .17% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21%89 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Assemblies of God E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35%12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Baha’is of the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15%75 . . . . . . . . . .Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) O . . . . . . . . . . . .17% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24%160 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Christian Reformed Church E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16%188 . . . . . . . .Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints E . . . . . . . . . . .0% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34%68 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Church of the Nazarene E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19%65 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Churches of Christ E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25%100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Conservative Judaism 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15%104 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Episcopal Church O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28%100 . . . . . . . . .Evangelical Lutheran Church in America O . . . . . . . . . . .11% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15%120 . . . . . . . . . . .Historically Black Denominations E,3 . . . . . . . . . . . . .46% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35%104 . . . . . . . . . . .Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod E . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17%80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mennonite Church USA O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16%250 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Muslim 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .NA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39%105 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Non-denominational E,5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45%110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Orthodox Christian 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28%70 . . . . . . . . . . . . .Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26%125 . . . . . . . . . . . . .Reformed Church in America O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22%95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Reform Judaism 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19%567 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Roman Catholic Church 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21%55 . . . . . . . . . . . . .Seventh-day Adventist Church E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16%170 . . . . . . . . . . . . .Southern Baptist Convention E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24%80 . . . . . . . . . . .Unitarian Universalist Association O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15%70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .United Church of Christ O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17%60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .United Methodist Church O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20%150 . . . . . . . . .Non-Partner Denominations/Traditions E,8 . . . . . . . . . . .30% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31%

a See discussion related to Figure 8b See discussion related to Figure 13c See discussion related to Figure 23Protestant Families: E – Evangelical; O – Oldline/Mainline1 Response rate warrants caution.2 Conducted by Synagogue 3000. Includes the Conservative and Reformed Traditions.3 Conducted by the Interdenominational Theological Center. Low response rate warrants caution.4 Conducted by the Islamic Society of America. Low response rate warrants caution.5 Conducted by the Hartford Institute for Religion Research. Low response rate warrants caution.6 Conducted by the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in America. Includes the Antiochian Orthodox

Christian Archdiocese of North America, Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America and the Orthodox Church in America.7 Conducted by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA).8 Conducted by a subcontractor of the Cooperative Congregational partnership. Low response rate warrants caution.

Faith Communities Today FACTs on Worship: 2010

The Faith Communities Today SurveysThe FACT 2010 national data set brings together

the 26 individual surveys of congregations listed onthe previous page. Twenty-four were conducted by orfor denominations and faith groups in the CooperativeCongregational Studies Partnership (CCSP), representing32 of the county’s largest denominations and traditions.Partners developed a common core questionnaire ofjust over 150 questions consisting of items from theFACT 2000 , FACT 2005 and FACT 2008 surveys.Copies of all FACT questionnaires are available at:www.faithcommunitiestoday.org/. They should bereferred to for the exact wording of items used inthis report.

Using the common questionnaire, CCSP partnergroups conducted their own, typically mail and onlinesurvey of a representative, random national sampleof their own congregations. Usually a congregation’sleader completed the questionnaire. CCSP alsoconducted a national survey of non-denominationalcongregations based on a random sample drawn fromseveral mailing and marketing lists purchased fromnational vendors. Finally, CCSP contracted with adenominational agency to survey a sample of non-partner denomination congregations, also based ona random sample drawn from several mailing andmarketing lists.

For purposes of the overall national analysis, the26 FACT 2010 sub-surveys were combined in such away that, through the use of statistical weights, eachpartner denomination and faith group, and each non-partner cluster of congregations are represented inthe national FACT 2010 data proportionate to theirrepresentation in the total population of congregationsin the United States. This aggregated dataset includesresponses from 11,077 congregations, and over 120denominations. Return rates were typically good forsurveys of this type—in the 40% range. Sub-surveyswith lower return rates are noted in the appendix.Sampling error for a survey such as FACT 2010 canonly be roughly estimated. We believe a conservativeestimate is +/- 4% at the 95% confidence level.

The Faith Communities Today ProjectThe FACT series of national surveys of American

Congregations is a project of the Cooperative Congre-gational Studies Partnership (CCSP). CCSP is a multi-faith coalition of denominations and religious groupshosted by Hartford Seminary’s Hartford Institute forReligion Research. The primary purposes of CCSP aredeveloping research-based resources for congregationaldevelopment and advancing the public understandingof the most numerous voluntary organization in theU.S.—our religious congregations. More informationabout CCSP, its partners, its publications, the FACTsurveys and how to subscribe to its monthly newsletteris available at www.faithcommunitiestoday.org.

FACTs On Worship: 2010 was written byMarjorie Royle, Ph.D., of Clay Pots Research. Herreligious research projects have included a major studyof worship in the United Church of Christ. For a listof other FACT publications and contact informationvisit the Faith Communities Today web site at:www.FaithCommunitiesToday.org.

– 16 –

Copyright © 2012 – Hartford Institute for Religion ResearchHartford Seminary • 77 Sherman Street Hartford, CT 06105 • (860) 509-9543 • www.hirr.hartsem.edu

Graphic Design by Richard Houseal

AppendixSample Description

americancongregations2010 - faith communities today

Documents