Not that anyone might be interested, but I thought this analysis might be of value to preserve, at least for me. Basically it is a series of statistical analyses on various aspects of worship attendance in the NTNL mission area. The jist of it is for me at least. 2009 did cost us worship attendance. Location of congregations (Urban, Suburban, Rural, Small City) does not predict growth or stagnation/decline. Size of a congregation also is only very slightly correlated with worship attendance growth. The language a congregation speaks is not a significant factor in differences in attendance. 

What is missing in all of this is analysis of the leadership of the congregations. Who were the pastors and lay leaders. I think if that was included, in a dissertation perhaps, that might get us somewhere.

EG

PHDL 7330 Final

Erik Gronberg

Dallas Baptist University

1: One Sample t-test

Hypothesis: H₀: µ = 107; H₁: µ ≠ 107

Question: Did the average worship attendance of churches in the Greater Fort Worth conference of the ELCA in 2011 differ significantly from that of the entire Northern Texas Northern Louisiana mission territory (NTNL)?

One-Sample Statistics
	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error Mean
2011 Average Worship Attd	16	114.6250	99.16375	24.79094

One-Sample Test
	Test Value = 107
	t	Df	Sig. (2-tailed)	Mean Difference	95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
					Lower	Upper
2011 Average Worship Attd	.308	15	.763	7.62500	-45.2156	60.4656

            Figure 1 Output for a one sample t-test

Reject/Fail to Reject: The null hypothesis is not rejected, p(0.763)> .05, there is not a significant difference between sample mean and test value.

Effect size: d= 7.63/99.16 =  .08 Effect size is very small (<.50).

Conclusion: This sample of sixteen ELCA churches in the Fort Worth area (M = 114.63, SD = 99.16) do not have a significantly different average worship attendance in 2011 than the average for the NTNL of 107, t(15) = .308, p > .05, d = 0.07. There is no significant difference in average worship attendance between the entire NTNL and the average in 2011 for the Greater Fort Worth Conference.

2: Independent Samples t-test

Variables: LANGUAGE (primary worship language)  AVGWOR (Average Weekly Worship)

Hypothesis: Ho: µ_non-english = µ_english; H₁: µ_non-english ≠ µ_english

Question: Averaging from 1992-2012 is there a difference in attendance between congregations in the NTNL whose primary worship language is not-English versus those in English?

Group Statistics
	LANGUAGE	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error Mean
AVGWOR	Non-English	9	192.2222	304.64232	101.54744
	English	98	116.4898	107.84164	10.89365

Independent Samples Test
		Levene's Test for Equality of Variances		t-test for Equality of Means
		F	Sig.	t	df	Sig. (2-tailed)	Mean Difference	Std. Error Difference	95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
									Lower	Upper
AVGWOR	Equal variances assumed	14.796	.000	1.629	105	.106	75.7324	46.48870	-16.44607	167.91093
	Equal variances not assumed			.742	8.185	.479	75.7324	102.1300	-158.85612	310.32098

Figure 2 Output for an Independent sample t-test

Assumption of equality of variances: p(.000)<.05 so cannot assume equal variances.

Reject/Fail to Reject: Null hypothesis not rejected p(.479) > .05.  

Effect size: d = t √((N₁+N₂)/(N₁*N₂)) = .742√((9+98)/(9*98)) = .26  The effect size is irrelevant as the results are not significant.

Conclusion: The worship attendance in 1992-2012 of the 9 non-english speaking congregations (M = 192.22, SD = 101.55) in this sample was not significantly different than the worship attendance of the 98 English speaking congregations (M = 116.49, SD = 10.89), t(8.2) = .742, p > .05, d = .26. Equal variances could not be assumed (F(105) = 14.80, p < 0.05). Extrapolating from this sample it can be assumed that non-English speaking and English speaking congregations show no discernable difference in average weekly worship attendance. However, given that equal variances cannot be assumed, further testing should be done as a small set of outliers might be affecting the result.

3: Dependent Samples t-test

Variables: PRIWORATT(2007-2009)  POSWORATT (after 2009)

Hypothesis: Ho: µ_priworatt - µ_posworatt = 0;  H₁: µ_priworatt - µ_postworatt ≠ 0

Question: Did average Sunday attendance in the Northern Texas-Northern Louisiana Mission Territory fall in the three years after 2009 in comparison to the average for 2007-2009?

Paired Samples Statistics
				Mean				N			Std. Deviation				Std. Error Mean
Pair 1		Worship Att 2007-2009		108.4904				104			115.34322				11.31033
		Worship Att Post 2009		116.7788				104			242.98547				23.82669
Paired Samples Correlations
						N			Correlation			Sig.
Pair 1		Worship Att 2007-2009  & Worship Att Post 2009				104			.678			.000
Paired Samples Test
			Paired Differences													t	Df		Sig. (2-tailed)
			Mean		Std. Deviation		Std. Error Mean			95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
										Lower			Upper
Pair 1	Worship Att 2007-2009 - Worship Att Post 2009		-8.28846		185.24079		18.16435			-44.31317			27.73625			-.456	103		.649

 Figure 3 Output for a Dependent Samples t-test

Reject/Fail to Reject: Fail to reject the null hypothesis p(.649)>.05. There is a not a significant difference in worship attendance prior to 2009 and after.

Effect size: d = -8.29/185.24 = -.045. Effect size is very small (<.20).

Conclusion: In 2009 the ELCA made a very controversial decision as a church body which has been widely assumed to decrease involvement and worship attendance. This study shows that worship attendance prior (2007-2009) (M = 108.49, SD = 115.34) is not significantly different than worship attendance after 2009 (M = 116.78, SD = 242.99), t(104) = -.46, p (.65) > .05, d = -.045.  However, a significant outlier congregation who has grown at a significant rate in those years may have skewed the results. Removing this outlier these results are displayed below…

Paired Samples Statistics-Outlier Removed
				Mean			N		Std. Deviation					Std. Error Mean
Pair 1		Worship Att 2007-2009		104.4757			103		108.35977					10.67701
		Worship Att Post 2009		94.9903			103		98.81122					9.73616
Paired Samples Correlations-Outlier Removed
						N		Correlation			Sig.
Pair 1		Worship Att 2007-2009 & Worship Att Post 2009				103		.935			.000
Paired Samples Test-Outlier Removed
			Paired Differences												t		df	Sig. (2-tailed)
			Mean		Std. Deviation			Std. Error Mean		95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
										Lower		Upper
Pair 1	Worship Att 2007-2009 - Worship Att Post 2009		9.48544		38.38833			3.78251		1.98284		16.98804			2.508		102	.014

Figure 4 Output for a Dependent Samples t-test less Outlier

Reject/Fail to Reject: Reject the null hypothesis p(.014)<.05. There is a significant difference in worship attendance prior to 2009 and after. It is lower.

Effect size: d = 9.49/38.39 = .25 Effect size is small (.20<E<.50).

Conclusion: In the Northern Texas-Northern Louisiana Mission Area one congregation has grown a great deal in the past three years. This congregation’s growth skewed previous analysis. This study shows that by removing this outlier average worship attendance prior (2007-2009) (M = 104.48, SD = 108.36) is significantly lower than worship attendance after 2009 (M = 94.99, SD = 98.81), t(103) = 2.51, p (.014) < .05, d = 0.25. The effect size of the difference is not large however, so further analysis is warranted to discern the significant causes of decline.

4: One-Way ANOVA

Variables: SIZE (Size categories) ATTGROW (percentage growth or decline in worship attd)

Question: Does the size of a congregations worship attendance in the NTNL predict their population growth or decline between 2008-2012?

Hypothesis: Ho: µ_0-50 = µ_50-100 = µ_101-150 = µ_150-200 = µ₂₀₀₊; H₁: at least one pop. mean is different.

Test of Homogeneity of Variances
% Attendance Growth/Decline
Levene Statistic	df1	df2	Sig.
3.008	4	102	.022

Figure 5.1 Output for test of homogenous variances

Homogeneity of Variances: p(.022) < .05, null hypothesis rejected, equal variances not assumed.

Descriptives
% Attendance Growth/Decline
	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	95% Confidence Interval for Mean		Minimum	Maximum
					Lower Bound	Upper Bound
1-50	42	.1726	.43498	.06712	.0371	.3082	.00	1.90
51-100	31	.0652	.21489	.03860	-.0137	.1440	.00	1.06
101-150	14	.1221	.37524	.10029	-.0945	.3388	.00	1.40
151-200	10	.0380	.09295	.02939	-.0285	.1045	.00	.29
200+	10	.2740	.78577	.24848	-.2881	.8361	.00	2.50
Total	107	.1318	.40173	.03884	.0548	.2088	.00	2.50

ANOVA
% Attendance Growth/Decline
	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Between Groups	.499	4	.125	.766	.550
Within Groups	16.608	102	.163
Total	17.107	106

Figure 5.2 Output for one-way ANOVA

Reject/Fail to Reject: p(.550) > .05, null hypothesis not rejected. No statistically significant difference between means (percentage growth of worship attendance). No post hoc tests required and as such are not shown here.

Eta²: η²= sum of squares between groups/sum of squares total = .499/16.608 = .030.

            -As the result is not significant, the effect size is irrelevant.

Conclusion: The percentage growth of a congregation from 2008-2012 is not statistically significant different based on the size category of the congregation, F(4,102) = .766, p > .05, η²= .030. There was not a significant difference in growth or decline rates based on the size category of a congregation between 2008-2012. Post-hoc tests are unnecessary and for the sake of space not presented here. This data would seem to support a conclusion congregational size is not significant in the growth or decline of a congregation. Additional testing should be done to determine if there are other statistical factors that significantly affect growth or decline of congregations.

5: Chi-Square test of Independence

Variables: LOCATION(Urban, Suburban, Rural or Small City)  GROWTH (growing, stagnant

or declining 2008-2012)

Assumptions: The Chi-Square test of Independence assumes a random sample with randomly collected observations in each cell of the data that are independent of each other. In other words, each randomly selected subject only contributes once to the sample. Additionally, there cannot be any empty cells and at least 80% of the cells must have a count or frequency greater than 5.

Question: Is there a relationship between internet use and marital status?

Hypotheses:     Ho: Worship growth/decline and location are independent (no relationship).

                        H₁: Worship growth/decline and location are not independent (relationship).

Case Processing Summary
		Cases
		Valid			Missing					Total
		N		Percent	N		Percent			N	Percent
Church Location * Growing or Decling		107		100.0%	0		0.0%			107	100.0%
Church Location * Growing or Decling Crosstabulation
						Growing or Decling						Total
						Growing			Stagnant or Declining
Church Location	Urban		Count			6			24			30
			Expected Count			6.4			23.6			30.0
			% within Church Location			20.0%			80.0%			100.0%
	Suburban		Count			9			17			26
			Expected Count			5.6			20.4			26.0
			% within Church Location			34.6%			65.4%			100.0%
	Rural		Count			5			28			33
			Expected Count			7.1			25.9			33.0
			% within Church Location			15.2%			84.8%			100.0%
	Small City		Count			3			15			18
			Expected Count			3.9			14.1			18.0
			% within Church Location			16.7%			83.3%			100.0%
Total			Count			23			84			107
			Expected Count			23.0			84.0			107.0
			% within Church Location			21.5%			78.5%			100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
		Value		df	Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square		3.728a		3	.292
Likelihood Ratio		3.518		3	.318
Linear-by-Linear Association		.556		1	.456
N of Valid Cases		107
a. 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.87.

Symmetric Measures
		Value	Approx. Sig.
Nominal by Nominal	Phi	.187	.292
	Cramer's V	.187	.292
N of Valid Cases		107
a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.
b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

 Figure 5  Output for the chi-square test of independence

Reject/Fail to Reject: Since p(.292) > .05 the null hypothesis is not rejected. There is a not a significant relationship between the variables.

Effect Size: V = √(χ²/(N(k-1))) = √(3.728/(107(2-1))) = .187

The effect size (.19) is small. Additionally, since the null is not rejected, it is irrelevant.

Conclusion: There is not a significant relationship between location (urban, suburban, rural or small city) and whether a congregation is growing, stagnant or declining in worship attendance, χ²(4, N = 107) = 3.73, p > .05, Cramer’s V = .19. Congregations in Urban (20.0% growing, 80.0 % stagnant or declining), Suburban (34.6% growing, 65.4.1 % stagnant or declining), Rural (15.2% growing, 84.8 % stagnant or declining) or Small City (16.7% growing, 83.3% stagnant or declining) exhibit levels of growth and decline that are independent of location. Given the size of the sample (N=107) it is possible that a few outliers significant affect this procedure. Additionally, one cell has a count less than 5 which given that this is a larger table (greater than 4 cells) does not invalidate the results, but a larger sample might be helpful. Additional analysis should be done to discern what additional factors might be predictive of growth or decline. This will be done later through regression analysis.

6: Simple Linear Regression

Variables: SIZE (avg worship attd 2008-2012) GROWTH (% inc/dec worship attd 2008-2012)

                        Figure 6.1 Scatterplot with regression line for SIZE and GROWTH

Hypothesis: H₀ : β_size = 0; H₁ : β_size ≠ 0

Question: Does the size of a congregation predict their growth or decline?

Descriptive Statistics
							Mean			Std. Deviation								N
Growth Rate 2008-2012							-.0222			.48394								107
Church Worship Attd							111.1963			178.64931								107
Correlations
														Growth Rate 2008-2012						Church Worship Attd
Pearson Correlation				Growth Rate 2008-2012										1.000						.386
				Church Worship Attd										.386						1.000
Sig. (1-tailed)				Growth Rate 2008-2012										.						.000
				Church Worship Attd										.000						.
N				Growth Rate 2008-2012										107						107
				Church Worship Attd										107						107
Variables Entered/Removeda
Model		Variables Entered				Variables Removed						Method
1		Church Worship Attdb				.						Enter
a. Dependent Variable: Growth Rate 2008-2012
b. All requested variables entered.
Model Summary
Model		R	R Square						Adjusted R Square						Std. Error of the Estimate
1		.386a	.149						.141						.44849
a. Predictors: (Constant), Church Worship Attd
ANOVAa
Model					Sum of Squares						df					Mean Square							F		Sig.
1	Regression				3.705						1					3.705							18.420		.000b
	Residual				21.120						105					.201
	Total				24.825						106
a. Dependent Variable: Growth Rate 2008-2012
b. Predictors: (Constant), Church Worship Attd
Coefficientsa
Model								Unstandardized Coefficients											Standardized Coefficients					t			Sig.
								B					Std. Error						Beta
1	(Constant)							-.139					.051											-2.711			.008
	Church Worship Attd							.001					.000						.386					4.292			.000
a. Dependent Variable: Growth Rate 2008-2012

Figure 6.2 Output for the linear regression procedure

R/ R²: R is the multiple correlation coefficient and is equal to the Pearson correlation. A value of .386 indicates that there is a positive correlation between SIZE and GROWTH. R² indicates the percentage of the total variance in GROWTH that can be attributed to SIZE. In this case SIZE is responsible for 14.9% of the variance in GROWTH. These values show that the size of a congregation has some predictive impact on the growth/decline of a congregation.

Reject/Fail to Reject: As p (.000) < .05 we reject the null hypothesis that the beta weight of SIZE is equal to zero. There is a relationship between the variables.

Regression Equation: Ŷ = a + bx    Ŷ_GROWTH = -.139 + .001(SIZE)

 The regression equation shows that there is a small positive correlation between the size of a congregation and their growth/decline.

Conclusion: A regression analysis was conducted with worship growth/decline (2008-2012) as the criterion variable and average worship attendance (2008-2012) completed as the predictor. Average worship attendance was a significant predictor of income level, β = .39, t(107) = 4.29, p < .05, and accounted for 15% (R² = .15) of the variance in growth or decline. While not an overly large predictor of growth or decline this analysis demonstrates larger average worship attendance is correlated with a slightly higher percentage increase in worship attendance from 2008-2012. However the effect of this is small. For example, for every 100 average worshippers at a congregation the equation predicts an increase in growth rate of .1% over the four year period. There must be other significant factors that play into predicting a congregations growth rate.

7: Multiple Regression

Dependent Variable: GROWTH (% inc/dec worship attd 2008-2012)

Independent Variables: SIZE (avg worship attd 2008-2012), LOCATION (Urban, Suburban, Rural, Small City), 1990GD (1992-2002 Growth/Decline), 2000GD (2002-2012 Growth/Decline)

Individual Hypotheses:

H₀: β_size= 0    (H.1)      H₁: β_size ≠ 0

H₀: β_location  =  0   (H.2)      H₁: β_location ≠ 0  

H₀: β_GD1990   = 0    (H.3)      H₁: β_GD1990 ≠ 0

H₀: β_GD2000   = 0    (H.4)      H₁: β_GD2000 ≠ 0

Overall Regression Model Hypothesis:

H₀:  R² = 0           (H.5)      H₁: R² > 0

Research Questions For Individual Predictors:

     H.1: Does average size predict inc/dec in average worship attendance from 2008-2012?

     H.2: Does location predict inc/dec in average worship attendance from 2008-2012?    

     H.3: Does growth or decline (1992-2002) predict inc/dec in average worship attendance from              2008-2012?    

     H.4: Does growth or decline (2002-2012) predict inc/dec in average worship attendance from 2008-2012?

Research Question For Overall Regression Model…

     H.5: When taken together, do size, location, growth or decline from 1992-2002 and growth or             decline 2002-2012 predict % inc/dec in average worship attendance from 2008-2012?

Descriptive Statistics
	Mean	Std. Deviation	N
Growth/Decline 2008-2012	.0524	1.26847	94
Congregation Size 2008-2012	97.8149	103.55718	94
Urban,Suburban, Rural, Small City	2.3723	1.07747	94
Growth/Decline 1990's	-.0490	.48417	94
Growth/Decline 2000s	-.1851	.89089	94

Correlations
		Growth/Decline 2008-2012	Congregation Size 2008-2012	Urban,Suburban, Rural, Small City	Growth/Decline 1990's	Growth/Decline 2000s
Pearson Correlation	Growth/Decline 2008-2012	1.000	.030	-.075	-.103	.939
	Congregation Size 2008-2012	.030	1.000	-.265	.386	.080
	Urban,Suburban, Rural, Small City	-.075	-.265	1.000	-.127	-.050
	Growth/Decline 1990's	-.103	.386	-.127	1.000	-.147
	Growth/Decline 2000s	.939	.080	-.050	-.147	1.000
Sig. (1-tailed)	Growth/Decline 2008-2012	.	.386	.237	.162	.000
	Congregation Size 2008-2012	.386	.	.005	.000	.222
	Urban,Suburban, Rural, Small City	.237	.005	.	.110	.317
	Growth/Decline 1990's	.162	.000	.110	.	.078
	Growth/Decline 2000s	.000	.222	.317	.078	.
N	Growth/Decline 2008-2012	94	94	94	94	94
	Congregation Size 2008-2012	94	94	94	94	94
	Urban,Suburban, Rural, Small City	94	94	94	94	94
	Growth/Decline 1990's	94	94	94	94	94
	Growth/Decline 2000s	94	94	94	94	94

Variables Entered/Removeda
Model	Variables Entered	Variables Removed	Method
1	Growth/Decline 2000s, Urban,Suburban, Rural, Small City, Growth/Decline 1990's, Congregation Size 2008-2012b	.	Enter
a. Dependent Variable: Growth/Decline 2008-2012
b. All requested variables entered.

Model Summary
Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate
1	.943a	.889	.884	.43129
a. Predictors: (Constant), Growth/Decline 2000s, Urban,Suburban, Rural, Small City, Growth/Decline 1990's, Congregation Size 2008-2012

ANOVAa
Model		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
1	Regression	133.084	4	33.271	178.864	.000b
	Residual	16.555	89	.186
	Total	149.640	93
a. Dependent Variable: Growth/Decline 2008-2012
b. Predictors: (Constant), Growth/Decline 2000s, Urban,Suburban, Rural, Small City, Growth/Decline 1990's, Congregation Size 2008-2012

Coefficientsa
Model		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.
		B	Std. Error	Beta
1	(Constant)	.523	.131		3.979	.000
	Congregation Size 2008-2012	-.001	.000	-.081	-2.047	.044
	Urban,Suburban, Rural, Small City	-.048	.043	-.041	-1.110	.270
	Growth/Decline 1990's	.167	.102	.064	1.631	.106
	Growth/Decline 2000s	1.357	.051	.953	26.420	.000
a. Dependent Variable: Growth/Decline 2008-2012

Figure 7 Output for the multiple regression procedure

R/ R²: R is .943 which indicate these measures of growth and location are positively correlated with the overall regression model based on the four predictors. R²=.889 which indicates that 89% of the variance in growth/decline from 2008-2012 can be attributed to the predictor variables.

Significant Predictors: p(.044)<.05 for SIZE (CONG SIZE 2008-2012) and  p(000) < .05 for GD2000s (Growth/Decline 2000s). These two predictor variables are significant as predictors of the rate of growth for worship attendance 2008-2012.

Non-Significant Predictors: p (.270) > .05 for LOCATION (Urban, Suburban, Rural, Small City) and p(.106) > .05 for GD1990 (Growth/Decline 1992-2002). Apparently the location and the level of growth from 1992-2002 in worship attendance is not a significant predictor of  worship attendance growth 2008-2012.

Reject/Fail to Reject:

            Individual Hypotheses:

      H₀: β_SIZE= 0    (H.1)      H₁: β_SIZE ≠ 0  REJECT THE NULL p<.05

      H₀: β_LOCATION  =  0   (H.2)      H₁: β_LOCATION ≠ 0    FAIL TO REJECT p>.05

      H₀: β_GD1990   = 0    (H.3)      H₁: β_GD1990 ≠ 0     FAIL TO REJECT p > .05

      H₀: β_GD2000   = 0    (H.4)      H₁: β_GD2000 ≠ 0     REJECT THE NULL p<.05

            Overall Regression Model Hypothesis:

      H₀:  R² = 0           (H.5)      H₁: R² > 0          REJECT THE NULL p<.05

Regression Equation: Ŷ = a + b₁X₁ + b₂X₂ + b₃X₃ + b₄X₄

Ŷ_GROWTH =  .523 +  -.001(SIZE) +  -.048(LOCATION) +  .167(GD1990) +  1.357(GD2000)

The regression equation shows the negative correlation of two of the four of the predictor variables on the growth rate of congregational worship attendance from 2008-2012. This equation shows the increasing importance and impact on the correlation from overall size from 2008-2012 to growth from 2002 to 2012. The equation also shows how little in the overall equation the location and the growth/decline of worship attendance from 1992-2002 mattered.

Conclusion: A multiple regression was conducting predicting growth in worship attendance from 2008-2012 based on growth of the congregations worship attendance from 1992-2002 and 2002-2012 as well as the location of the congregation and its overall  average size from 2008-2012. The sample was limited to the 94 congregations with data that spanned this period. Overall, the regression was significant, F(4, 89) = 178.86, p< .05, R²:= .89. Of the predictors investigated, SIZE (β = -.00, t(89) = -2.05, p < .05) and GD2000 (β = 1.36, t(89) = 26.42, p < .05) were significant. GD1990 (β = .17, t(89) = 1.63, p > .05)  and LOCATION (β = -.05, t(89) = -1.11, p < .05) were not a predictor. These results indicate that the current size of a congregation is slightly negatively correlated with worship attendance growth while overall growth/decline over the decade of the 2000’s is much more positively associated with growth. From this analysis it can be stated that neither location (urban, suburban, rural or small city) nor growth/decline in the decade of the 1990s were significantly associated with growth during the 2008-2012 time span. The most significant predictor is the overall growth rate of the congregation during the decade of the 2000’s which is logical because that decade would include the 2008-2012 time frame in its statistics. As a result, this study is far from definitive on the predictors of growth and is more useful is demonstrating what are not significant predictors. More investigation should be done into why this study result occurred and the implications of these results.

8: Correlation

Hypothesis: H₀: ρ = 0; H₁: ρ ≠ 0

Question: Is there a relationship between Attendance growth/decline from 1992-2002 and attendance growth/decline from 2002-2012?

                        Figure 8.1 Scatterplot with regression line for Att1990s and Att2000s

Correlations
		Att. Growth/Decline 1992-2002	Att. Growth/Decline 2002-2012
Att. Growth/Decline 1992-2002	Pearson Correlation	1	-.146
	Sig. (2-tailed)		.157
	N	95	95
Att. Growth/Decline 2002-2012	Pearson Correlation	-.146	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.157
	N	95	95

Figure 8.2 Output for the correlation procedure

Reject/Fail to Reject: As p (.157) > .05 we fail to reject the null hypothesis that the correlation coefficient is equal to zero. There is no significant relationship between the variables.

Effect size: ρ is commonly used as effect size in these cases. With ρ = -.15 this would be categorized as a small effect size.

Conclusion: There is not a significant positive or negative relationship r(93) = -.15, p > .05 between the growth/decline of attendance between 1992-2002 and 2002-2012 among the 95 churches in the Northern Texas/Northern Louisiana Synod that have statistics for these periods. There is no relationship between the growth or decline of congregations in these two decades. From this analysis it can be assumed that prior growth or decline are not correlated with later growth or decline. This is good news for congregations in decline as well as a challenge to those that are growing. Past results do not correlate to future results.

9: Non-Parametric (Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test)

Variables: PRIWORATT(2007-2009)  POSWORATT (after 2009)

Hypothesis: Ho: µ_priworatt - µ_posworatt = 0;  H₁: µ_priworatt - µ_postworatt ≠ 0

Question: Did average Sunday attendance in the Northern Texas-Northern Louisiana Mission Territory fall in the three years after 2009 in comparison to the average for 2007-2009?

Descriptive Statistics
	N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Minimum	Maximum	Percentiles
						25th	50th (Median)	75th
Worship Att Post 2009	104	116.7917	242.94776	10.00	2360.67	36.7500	63.0000	126.8333
Worship Att 2007-2009	104	108.5096	115.33385	8.00	626.00	38.2500	71.8333	137.9167

Ranks
		N	Mean Rank	Sum of Ranks
Worship Att 2007-2009 - Worship Att Post 2009	Negative Ranks	22a	40.75	896.50
	Positive Ranks	79b	53.85	4254.50
	Ties	3c
	Total	104
a. Worship Att 2007-2009 < Worship Att Post 2009
b. Worship Att 2007-2009 > Worship Att Post 2009
c. Worship Att 2007-2009 = Worship Att Post 2009

Test Statisticsa
	Worship Att 2007-2009 - Worship Att Post 2009
Z	-5.688b
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)	.000
a. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test
b. Based on negative ranks.

Figure 9 Output for a Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test

Reject/Fail to Reject: Fail to reject the null hypothesis p(.649)>.05. There is a not a significant difference in worship attendance prior to 2009 and after.

Effect size: r  = z/√N = 5.69/√104 = .56  Effect size is large (>.50).

Conclusion: In 2009 the ELCA made a very controversial decision as a church body which has been widely assumed to decrease involvement and worship attendance. Previously a dependent samples t-test was performed that indicated there was no significant difference. However, an outlier was identified that might skew the results and when removed the result was significant. To contribute to the robustness of this analysis, a Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test (non-parametric) was performed which helps control for such outliers through the use of medians and ranking. This study shows that worship attendance prior (2007-2009) (M = 108.50, SD = 115.34) is significantly different than worship attendance after 2009 (M = 116.79, SD = 242.94), z = -5.69, p (.000) < .05, r = .56. The median average attendance decreased from 2007-2009 (Md = 72) to post 2009 (Md = 63).

Does it matter that Moses was white?

Flipping on the end of the first episode of "The Bible" docu-drama on the History channel last night I was struck by two things. 1) It is a visually beautiful movie, the scenes are colorful and the CGI makes miraculous events such as the parting of the Red Sea come to life. It is something to behold. 2) Once again I was floored that the character playing Moses was clearly a white guy, and no attempt other than clothing was made to make him more realistic to what the actual Moses of history would look like.

The film, in its website, acknowledges and actually seems to celebrate this is an "international cast." And indeed it is. Apparently Saul/Paul will be played by an Irish actor and Jesus by a very handsome young man from Portugal. Are these people qualified to act in this movie, certainly. Can actors take on roles that don't fit their racial makeup? Yes. Are they always be limited by the color of their skin and nationality, of course not. In this claim, it even seems they are hoping to diffuse controversy that would occur if they were to have a cast that was largely from one nation or people-group. However, in being so "politically correct" they leave a big part of the story of the bible untold and rather than make the story of the bible more real, they make it more fictional.

This was yet another opportunity for the filmmakers to accurately portray the world of the bible and present it to an increasingly non-Christian Western audience. In so doing, why not accurately portray the people in the bible? Their skin tone, physical presence and tone of speech does matter. These were actually historical people. The goal is historicity? Moses actually lived. He was a real person. You wouldn't have a portly, blond haired actor with a strong Midwestern accent playing George W. Bush in a docu-drama about the events of 9-11 would you?

The other objection is the issue of continuing to perpetuate white privilege and assumptions about the bible. Unfortunately, there will be those who watch this film and have their suspicions confirmed that the people of the bible looked like them. That the current residents of this land of Israel/Palestine have nothing to do with the history of scripture. Again, the story of the bible, which Christian's claim is a real historical narrative, becomes a fictional and spiritual occasion.

Once again this movie disconnects the scriptural message from the political realities of the world in which we live today. This is even more important in a world in which the Christian faith is growing more "southern" in its make-up. Christians today are looking more and more like the biblical characters. The average Christian today is not a white, euro-american, but a darker skinned, female living on the edge of poverty. (see Phillip Jenkins The New Faces of Christianity to learn more)

Throughout history it has been far too easy and simple for western and white Christians to divorce their faith from the reality of the world around them. The biblical characters just become sort of "spiritual phantoms" who floated through a world concerned only for the things of God and never worried about day to day realities. But of course the point of a "realistic" docu-drama is to make real the stories of the people and show how their lives were. To demonstrate the reality of their suffering, their concerns and their pains which include engaging the political world in which they lived. God's incarnation was indeed a real event in an historical time and place.

To take this argument to its extreme. If the way the actors look does not matter then neither should the costumes they wear or the locations of their sets. They could reenact the stories of the bible on a melting ice flow in the Arctic. And indeed, the content of the story would still matter. The power of the  Christian witness is that the Word became flesh (John 1) and therefore a human being, Jesus of Nazareth  embodied that Word. In the same way the Church, the body of Christ in the world, is to be Christ's embodiment today. 

That body is by no means limited to a certain race, creed or gender. However, if the goal is to tell the biblical story in a way that depicts its realism, then the actors should at least be chosen in an attempt to make them look the part. The makers of the film missed the challenge once again. To take seriously the political implications that God chose to be born to a poor, dark-skinned woman in an occupied nation. To take seriously the claim that Christians make that this ancient narrative, makes a difference for our world today.

MLK Day of Service

Today I was privileged to serve alongside young people and adults from Trinity Lutheran for the Tarrant Area Community of Churches MLK day of service. We were responding to the call of Dr. King to serve our neighbors in love, to proclaim good news and live that faith through service. I started the day at 7:30am with an interview on our local radio station KCBI 90.9 talking about this commitment, a Lutheran commitment, to justice and service. From there, we went to worship with our diverse and ecumenical community. We sang "Lift Every Voice and Sing" and "This Little Light of Mine" and were reminded that lighting a candle at Midnight means that we say to the darkness "I beg to differ!" Our youth and adults were able to experience the passion of the AME (African Methodist Episcopal) tradition as well as preaching from an Anglo Baptist preacher.

What a blessed day. Beautiful January weather here in North Texas. Cool but clear skies and warm sun. Our job was to go door to door in the Rosemont neighborhood of Fort Worth passing out flyers about programs for students in FWISD.  This is one of the highest population neighborhoods of students in the school district, but because of language and poverty, they are also often very unconnected with the resources available to them through the district. The reality is, our youth are also all students in FWISD, but because of demographic circumstance, they know all these programs exist. It was educational for them to learn there are many who do not.

I was so proud of our young people as they went, often just two of them at a time, to strangers doors and asked if they had students in the district and if so, could they give them some of the bi-lingual information we had. To be with our young people as they learned about the challenges of going door-to-door was impressive. Their willingness to step out, channeling their inner Jehovah's Witness, in going door to door was great. Even more impressive was that they quickly found that task tiring (as only 1 in about 6 door knocks got a response) and decided, instead of complaining, to start picking up trash. We collected 4 big bags of trash in our day together as well as visited an elderly Trinity member who lived in the neighborhood we were visiting.

On a day when we remember a movement that challenged the country to live up to its ideals of equality and fraternity.  Our youth lived that movement and proclaimed to a community that there are people who care and desire they have the same opportunities to succeed as they do. To look on others as sisters and brothers, to not look down upon those with a different skin tone or language, but see it as an opportunity to communicate and to share.

We are indeed blessed to be planted in the heart of Fort Worth here at Trinity. We have this calling. We are the Lutheran parish in downtown Fort Worth. As I arrived back at church I saw many families parking in our neighborhood and heading to the stock show and rodeo. But again, these were not our typical demographic. For today is the "Cowboys of Color" rodeo event. What a blessing to be planted in the heart of a diverse and exciting city!!! And what a blessing to have young people lead us in what it means to reach out in that community.

To Everything A Season

"For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted" -Ecclesiastes 3

Last night in Fort Worth we had our first big freeze. Temperatures dropped down into the low 20's. The freezing temps will come again tonight, signaling an end to the growing season for our garden. This morning when I arrived a church, the plants that were once so vibrant, full of life and flower, laid limp and cold. The season of their flowering had been completed, their purpose fulfilled. It is time for them to be plucked up.

Our theme this fall has been "Raising Faith: Growing Disciples." It is a theme rooted in the idea that it is God who gives us the gift of faith through the Holy Spirit. In Baptism that gift is planted in us and through the nourishment of the community, just as water and sunlight nourish the plants, faith blooms and grows in our hearts.  These plants fulfilled their purpose. They provided a physical presence and sustenance for our soup suppers (and even an occasional snack for the TLCC kiddos or Pastor G). But even more important they provided a spiritual reminder of all that God has and continues to do in our midst. Not only at Trinity but through the work of disciples of Jesus, ministering in their daily lives, in their places of vocation and in their family systems.

Now the season of these plants has come to an end. Tomorrow (Wednesday the 12th) we will hoe them under, back into the ground. They will then provide nourishment yet again for the future. In that beautiful cycle of life and death.The last month has seen a lot of that cycle of life here at Trinity. Four saints of our congregation have claimed the promises of their baptism. Each of these four lived good long lives, faithfully fulfilling God's purpose for them. 

Although we would wish to have them for another day, week, month or year. We could yet proclaim that indeed to everything a season, a purpose. They had fulfilled that purpose and we could commend them, despite our grief, to eternal rest well deserved.

On this cold morning, as I see the garden dying in the cold I reflect also on 2012 and personally lament the loss of two other saints gone too soon. These two, Tricia and Jacob, from my previous congregation in Wisconsin, lived faithful lives. Good lives. But far too short of lives. They were taken from us too soon, wilting in the height of season. Reflecting on them, I cannot so simply say that they lived their purpose, that it was their season. Because it was too soon. There was not a fullness of time.

Yet even in the tragic and untimely deaths of those saints, I believe I can proclaim that there is hope in the midst of loss. That God provides even in the midst of untimely losses. Our garden this year had a good and long growing season. But early freezes do come. Droughts strike, heat waves destroy flowering plants. Illness, accidents, strike down those we love. Not all of us will have long lives. 

Yet in the end, there is hope in the promise of Ash Wednesday. Remember you are dust and to dust you shall return. Earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust. And with that reality comes the promise of life with God. The one who created us and yet claims us in our Baptism and at the end of our days.We are made from this very stuff. The same stuff that grew our garden. God's creation nurtures and feeds us. It is God who gives us the growth. We can water, provide sunshine and do our best to protect from frost. But in the end, God gives the growth. So we return the garden to God's earth. Just as we turn over those we love to God's mercy. On a cold morning in Fort Worth. We are reminded of the wisdom of Psalm 90.

"So teach us to count our days that we may gain a wise heart" -Psalm 90:12

Why the Chiefs should have stayed home...

(Caveat: For those who don't know me, I LOVE football. Played it in high school and college. Watch and talk about it a lot! These are not the thoughts of an anti-football crusader. But the genuine critique of a friend of the game.)

Today the Kansas City Chiefs did something remarkable for their 2012 football season, they won a game. But there never should have been a game to win. Yesterday afternoon Jovan Belcher, a starting linebacker for the Chiefs, killed his girlfriend Kasandra Perkins (the mother of his 3 month old child). He then drove to the teams facilities. There he talked with teammates, coaches and staff before turning the gun on himself in front of his coach and GM.

Today, just over 24 hours after Jovan's death in the team parking lot at Arrowhead Stadium, 60,000 plus fans came to watch the team play. A moment of silence was observed, the owner talked about how hurt everyone was. But this is a game that should never have been played.

The fact that it was played further demonstrates just how far we have come in our obsession with games and money. How little concern we have as a society for each other, especially for woman and children. Even worse, how little concern we who are fans have, and frankly the NFL has, for the players and their families in this money making monstrosity called professional football.

I can formulate all the practical arguments for why it should have been played. The 60,000+ folks who were coming had made their plans, paid for their tickets. The other team had already flown into town. Rescheduling would be next to impossible. It would screw up all the standings for the Chiefs and Panthers to have one less game than everyone else, even though neither of them have any shot for the playoffs.

Then there are the positive arguments for playing on. To play on shows the spirit of the city in the midst of tragedy. We must persevere even in tragedy. Show our true grit in the midst of loss and grief. For that is what men, especially football men, do.

But this wasn't a "tragedy" this was a murder-suicide of a member of the team that was now to take the field. Yet apparently we cannot let that reality, as one tailgater said, "take too much out of our day." It is irrelevant to us that in this situation a member of the organization in which we have chosen to invest a huge amount of money (average cost for a family of four to attend an NFL game is approximately $450, although I think that is low and certainly does not include many $8 beers) has committed a monstrous crime. We will go to the game anyway. The coaches, even the head coach who witnessed his player die, will soldier on because this is what we do. We will say a prayer, have a moment of silence, but there is too much on the line to let this take much out of our day.

The Chiefs should have stayed home today. Oh, there are those who will say that the win they got was a boost for everyone emotionally. That it will help the healing process. But this isn't a team building up a community like A&M's win over Texas in 1999 after the bonfire collapsed and killed students. I was at that game and there a community stood up and honored those killed in an accident. The game, especially the Aggies win, provided some comfort and normality in the midst of this loss. But this was no accident.

In a couple weeks I doubt many of us will think much about the grandmother who is taking care of an orphaned 3 month old. Her friends may try hard, but Kasandra's name will quickly be forgotten. Maybe in a week, or a month, but we won't remember. But the games will go on.

We learned again today a valuable lesson. People are disposable, interchangeable, but games are not. The incredible money show must go on. But for Zoey, Romeo, Gary, Dianne and Scott everything radically changed yesterday. Don't know who the people are behind those names? Well, that is the problem isn't it. Maybe if the Chiefs had stayed home, we would.