Category Archives: membership

Whither The PC(USA)? Wither The PC(USA)?

5 Replies

What next?  What does this mean?

I suspect that many of you have also been hearing these questions whispered and shouted as Amendment 10-A looks fairly certain to be approved by the presbyteries and replace the “fidelity and chastity” section of the Book of Order.  And I suspect that you are also hearing in the discussion of its passage the suggestion that there will be a resulting increase in the already high departure rate from the denomination or the comments that the next major Book of Order section to be changed will be the definition of marriage (W-4.9001) and then an exodus will really begin.

Well, as regular readers are aware, I have a particular interest in the dynamics of the realignments in Presbyterian branches (example 1, example 2, example 3).  Needless to say, I have been thinking about some of these questions in the larger context of the history of American Presbyterianism and what the church might look like in the near future.  So here is a back of the envelope calculation and a thought experiment related to what is next.  Because this discussion is currently gaining momentum in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) I will be focusing on that branch, but I think a lot of this is easily generalized to other branches and denominations.

Experiment 1: Reality Check – The theological controversy is not the only membership decline issue
Frequently in the PC(USA) we hear that the denomination is losing members because of the internal controversies.  Well, it is probably a bit more complicated than that.

If we look at the summary of comparative statistics for 2009, the most recent year that is available, we can first make a rough estimate of the replacement capacity of the PC(USA).  In 2009 there were 20,501 individuals age 17 and under that joined the church by affirmation of faith. This is effectively the “internal gain,” that is the kids that come through the system from member families.  This represents a 1.0% membership gain for 2009.  This is offset by those that leave the rolls due to their new membership in the Church Triumphant, that is, those that have died.  For 2009 that was 32,827 or a loss of 1.5% of the membership.  So the net of -0.5% represents the church’s inability to replace its membership internally.

The other thing is that all of the mainline churches are declining in membership.  But within this decline there is a difference in the rates of decline relative to the strength of internal controversy in the churches.  For the six traditional “mainline” denominations that make the National Council of Churches 25 largest list, the less contentious United Methodist Church and American Baptist Churches in the USA declined by 1.01% and 1.55% respectively.  The three with more heated internal controversy had larger declines: PC(USA) declined 2.61%, the Episcopal Church declined 2.48%, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America declined 1.96%.  It would suggest that we could attribute at least 1%, and probably a bit more, of the PC(USA)’s decline to the internal controversy itself.  But that is only about half the total decline with the other half broken into about one-third the lack of internal replacement and about two-thirds the general decline in the mainline and the trend towards non-denominationalism.

Now the case can be made that these three factors are nothing more than different facets of the same general problem that the mainline faces — a younger generation shuns the “institutional” nature of the church with its continuing controversies in a hierarchical setting and their departure for the non-denominational or the “nones” raises the median age and decreases the birthrate.  However, the apparent correlation of membership declines with internal controversy is striking but not a complete explanation.

Experiment 2: Where could things go from here?
This is a fairly simple thought experiment — Let us begin with the question of the different paths forward and exploring a range of possible outcomes and then reflect briefly on the likelihood of each.  I’ll be structuring this a bit like a decision tree so at some point I can revisit it and place probabilities on the various outcomes. Also, I am trying to keep this as a generalization so it is applicable in other instances. And along the way here I have a notation to systematically label the different cases.

The first question is whether the denomination remains as a single body ( A ) or formally divides ( B ).

For branch A, where the denomination remains a single body, we could imagine one outcome where a unifying state is found (A1) and another where the church is internally divided (A2).

I think that taking this one more level is appropriate, and so let me suggest that the unifying state could be either a formal arrangement that resolves the issues and all sides accept as a solution (A1a) and maybe they are even happy with – a “win-win” situation” – or an acceptance to live by the decision of the majority submitting to Presbyterian polity that the church has gone through the discernment process to reach the decision and the church lives with that (A1b).

Now what if there is one body but with internal divisions – there could be either a formal and institutionalized arrangement (A2a) or a de facto division into clearly defined but not formally recognized divisions (A2b).

The other top branch is the formal division of a denomination into two distinct and separate bodies.  I must admit a bit more wrestling with this classification scheme and I’m not sure that always carrying it two levels further down works.  One form would be a formal division without specific action on the part of either side (B1). (More clarification on this in a moment.)  Another option would be division by action of only one side (B2).  For this we could consider two cases, one where the action is taken by the majority/dominant/controlling side (B2a) and the other where the action is taken by the minority/dissenting side (B2b).  Finally, there would be another case (B3) where the action is taken by mutual agreement of both sides.

Now, some clarifications of this system. First, this is a unary or binary system and only considers what is going on in one body that may be dividing into two bodies.  It does not consider a ternary system where some fraction is moved between two bodies.  In that case it would be viewed as a division of one and a unification of the second.  Second, as this example suggests, this system does not “map” the evolution of a division but only captures a description and classification of it at one point in time — a snapshot at an instant.  Third, it simplifies the situation of a whole body down to one category while a more complex description of different conditions at various levels may be better.  Finally, I have not yet reflected this classification system onto the reverse case of the merging of bodies.

So a quick check as to whether this scheme makes sense — here are some examples from Presbyterian history.

A1a – I would place the initial response for the Adopting Act of 1729 into this category where a solution was found that, at least temporarily, resolved the polity issue.  This was also the hope for the report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Uni
ty and Purity (PUP Report), although it is not clear that this hope was ever realized.

A1b – The category of living with the present polity even if opposed to it probably describes much of Presbyterian history — to use a liturgical analogy this is the “ordinary time” of our history.  This category does not preclude working to change what is disagreed with, but it suggests maintaining the system and the discussion while also maintaining a sense of being the Body of Christ together.

A2a – While the body living with a formal internal division is not at all common, it is not unheard of either.  This was part of the solution to reunify the mainline back in 1758 to resolve the Old/New Side split.  The existence of the continuing Old Side/New Side presbyteries in the following years is a suggested prototype for some of the flexible presbyteries and New Synod proposals circulating currently.

A2b – The case can be made that this unofficial status of division represents the present state of the PC(USA) with individuals identifying more with the various affinity groups in the church than with the denomination as a whole.

B1 – This is the category that I have the most difficulty defining because I am not sure that it can easily apply to a denomination as a whole, but rather represents a subdivision of the body.  However, I was looking for a category to represent the present church-by-church migration away from the PC(USA) through the New Wineskins organization.  So here, rather than leaving en masse, maybe the church divides through incremental departures.

B2a – Probably the premier example of the controlling group (and not necessarily the majority) forcing the division is the PCUSA General Assembly of 1837 where the Old School commissioners “locked out” a portion of the New School commissioners and controlled the Assembly.  It can be argued that this quickly became category B3 where the two sides basically agreed that they wanted to go it alone without the other.

B2b – This may be the most common category in the formal divisions of branch “B” with the majority group making a decision or disciplining a group or individual and that action precipitates a formal departure by members of the minority.  Well known examples of this division include the Disruption of 1843 in Scotland where the Free Church of Scotland formed from the established Church of Scotland and the controversies in the PCUSA in the 1930’s that would lead to a division and formation of a branch that would later become the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

B3 – The best examples I know of in this category are related to Presbyterian reunions where a small group dissents and is permitted to not be part of the merger and usually continue are their own individual branch.  This includes the continuing Free Church of Scotland churches that did not join the United Free Church in 1900, the churches from the Cumberland Presbyterian Church that did not join the PCUSA in 1906, the churches in the Presbyterian Church in Canada that did not become part of the United Church in 1925 and the Australian churches that did not join the Uniting Church in 1977 but continued as the Presbyterian Church in Australia.  Even more recently, with the reunion that formed the PC(USA) in 1983, there was an opportunity for churches that were part of the Presbyterian Church in the United States to depart after the merger.  It may be appropriate to have subcategories B3a for a mutual division that is not merger related and B3b for the case of a merger where a group is allowed to opt out of the union.

So, if you were keeping score at home you can see that the scheme I set up initially is not hypothetical but has examples from throughout Presbyterian history for each of the categories I suggest.

Discussion
So at this point some of you may be wondering whether my two experiments are “apples and oranges.”  After all, the first involves changes on the individual level and the second involves categorizing ecclesiastical changes at the highest levels.  Let me suggest that they are related…

These two forces are the tension the PC(USA), and other mainline churches, struggle with today.  Those who still honor or understand denominational identity are looking at how that identity can be perpetuated and the modern ethos asks what the need for denominations is in the first place.  Maybe the question to ask at this point is whether some of these categories of divisions could even happen today?  To put it another way – As Western religious culture has transformed to a non-denominational model would we see a denomination divide in the same ways that it has in the past?  Would we see a denomination truly divide at all or would it just dissipate?

Many of the great reorganizations and realignments in the Presbyterian church were based on the conviction of those involved that they were Presbyterian, but in good conscience could not accept some particular doctrinal or polity issue and so they removed themselves to be the variety of Presbyterians they thought God was calling them to be.

In the discussion above about membership loss the point is that some of the loss is not related to what it means to be Presbyterian, it is about finding a church that fits my tastes or has a style I can relate to.  If we are now in a non-denominational age then being a Presbyterian means a whole lot less than it did even 40 years ago.

Related to divisions in the church, this raises the question of whether a dissenting group could get enough critical mass to form a new Presbyterian branch.  That is why I was so determined to find some description for B1, the incremental informal departure.

So based on the present conditions which of these categories are likely outcomes and which are not?  Group A1 is probably not likely since the PUP Report was apparently not accepted as a unifying solution and the ongoing discussion over ordination standards and the questions about the future if 10-A passes seem to imply that there are concerns in some quarters of the current or future polity.  If we are looking for a unifying solution is must transcend the polity debates.  So, unless a unifying solution can be found, if we want to keep the PC(USA) together we are considering branch A2 – somehow living with or working out an internal division.  So far the General Assembly has been reluctant to approve flexible presbyteries or a parallel synod.  Whether you want to identify our current state as A1b or A2b the bottom line is that the membership decline will most likely continue as long as the current state continues — I would suggest considering alternatives.

Following the other path, there is discussion of a division in the church if 10-A passes.  I’m not sure I want to place exact odds on explicit division, or any particular form of formal division.  But as I mentioned above, the B1 division continues with departures of individual congregations (another one last week) and so like status quo on branch A, there is no reason to expect this not to continue.  The problem with branch B of course is that any alternative means two smaller denominations.  The alternatives, after doing nothing, are 1) keep working to find a unifying solution, 2) create internal parallel structures, 3) by one method or another create two smaller denominations and see if that configuration is stable for both of them.

Now, as you can see from my list above you can’t use the seven last words of the church here: “We’ve never done it that way before.”  You could argue that its not the way its supposed to be done.  I can relate to that — remember I have a good friend who pretty accurately describes me as a “polity fundamentalist.”  I don’t like the notion of a flexible ecclesialogy at all. Its just not… well, ITS NOT PRESBYTERIAN!

Please don’t think that I am abandoning Presbyterian polity for the purely pragmatic p
urpose of reversing membership decline.  But, for those of us who value Presbyterian polity it appears that we have two choices – 1) Maintain the status quo and live with 50,000 member/year losses or 2) Consider what it really means to be Presbyterian (sovereignty of God, connectionalism, meetings, discerning the will of God together, etc.) and find creative ways to be the Church in modern society while holding on to our core beliefs and (I think this is important) letting people know why we value the essentials of our polity.  If being Presbyterian means something to us let people know why!

I pray daily for the Middle Governing Bodies Commission.  I am encouraged by Tod Bolsinger’s comments at our Synod Assembly that the Commission will be looking for ideas to try on a demonstration basis.  I hope that we all have the courage to try some creative ideas that may or may not work, but show that we can still be Presbyterian and do things in a new way.  Maybe they would be along the lines of unifying ideas or maybe trying to live under the same tent with polity that differs a bit.  I don’t know but I look forward to the suggestions.

So where is the denomination headed?  Whither the PC(USA)? I don’t know.  But I do know that if we keep doing what we are doing the PC(USA) will continue to wither.

Postscript: After posting and reflecting on this piece I realized that a part in my original outline that hit the cutting room floor provided a certain balance to the tension I develop.  Rather than go back and add it to the original (there was a reason it got pulled) let me add three sentences here: What I don’t develop, but have mentioned elsewhere, is the non-organizational aspect of the membership decline.  What studies are finding (Almost Christian, Vanishing Boundaries) is the need for mainliners to develop their spiritual focus, depth and expectations.  If we subscribe to that remedy than we need to take Deep and Wide, or similar initiatives, seriously.

Drilling Down In The Religious Life Survey — Is Church Attendance Really That Good An Indicator?

Leave a reply

I don’t know how many other bloggers post something and then spend the next 24 hours second guessing themselves.  In this case, one of my conclusions yesterday was nagging at me and in a sense of academic honesty I just had to know if in my treatment of the data I had fooled myself and any readers along the way.  So, being the geek that I am I decided to drill down into that one particular survey question to see what else there was to see.

The conclusion that was nagging me was the sensitivity or “high bar” of church attendance as correlated to the growth or decline of denominations.  As part of the analysis I combined some categories in the survey and did not discuss the actual numbers from the survey.  So to remedy that here is an expanded analysis of that single question.  Those who are squeamish over statistics or don’t feel particularly geeky might want to turn away now — this analysis clarifies and qualifies some details but does little to change the overall conclusion I reached yesterday.

To recap, I am working with two data sets.  The first is the National Council of Churches list of the 25 largest denominations, especially the 14 of those that reported growth rates for 2010.  The second is The U.S. Religious Landscape Survey dataset from the Pew Research Center.  The resulting analysis and data manipulation is mine and it
should be kept in mind that “The Pew Research Center and the Pew Forum
on Religion & Public Life bear no responsibility for the analyses or
interpretations of the data presented here.”  For consistency I will again use only the data for the 48 contiguous United States and will not implement their weighting scheme.

In this analysis I want to look at only two questions in the survey.  The first is the multi-part question that established a respondent’s religion or denomination.  This was user supplied and provided some interesting results, as you will see in a minute.  I want to compare that affiliation information against the question “Aside from weddings and funerals, how often do you attend religious services… more than once a week, once a week, once or twice a month, a few times a year, seldom, or never?”

So, for the 14 denominations on the top 25 list that provided information, here are the results for that question.  I have ranked them by growth rate and include total respondents with each answer as well as the percentage.

Denomination 2010
Growth
Rate
(NCC) 		Attend
more than
once a week 		Attend
once a
week 		 Attend
once or
twice a
month 		Attend a
few times
a year 		 Attend
seldom 		Attend
never 		No
Answer
 Jehovah’s
Witnesses 		 4.37%
 158
74.2%
 21
9.9%
 7
3.3%
 13
6.1%
 9
4.2%
 4
1.9%
 1
0.5%
 Seventh-Day
Adventist 		 4.31%
 35
25.9%
 56

41.5%

 14

10.4%

 13
9.6%
 8
5.9%
 9
6.7%
 0
0.0%
 Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter
Day Saints 		 1.42%
 184
33.1%
 256
46.0%
 43
7.7%
 34
6.1%
 24
4.3%
 15
2.7%
 0
0.0%
 Catholic Church  0.57%
 842
10.5%
 2814
34.9%
 1471
18.3%
 1539
19.1%
 953
11.8%
 399
5.0%
 36
0.4%
 Assemblies
of God 		 0.52%
 225
46.9%
 135
28.1%
 44
9.2%
 38
7.9%
 26
5.4%
 11
2.3%
 1
0.2%
 Church of God
(Cleveland, TN) 		 0.38%
 65
52.4%
 24
19.4%
 15
12.1%
 15
12.1%
 3
2.4%
 2
1.6%
 0
0.0%
 Southern Baptist
Convention 		 -0.42%
 846
33.3%
 697
27.5%
 347
13.7%
 336
13.2%
 220
8.7%
 81
3.2%
 12
0.5%
 United Methodist
Church 		 -1.01%
 248
11.1%
 782
34.9%
 446
19.9%
 456
20.4%
 243
10.9%
 54
2.4%
 10
0.4%
 Lutheran Church-
Missouri Synod 		 -1.08%
 40
6.8%
 225
38.3%
 138
23.5%
 114
19.4%
 56
9.5%
 13
2.2%
 2
0.3%
 American Baptist
Churches in the USA 		 -1.55%
 70
17.0%
 114
27.7%
 80
19.5%
 82
20.0%
 46
11.2%
 16
3.9%
 3
0.7%
 Evangelical Lutheran
Church in America 		 -1.96%
 69
7.9%
 359
41.3%
 199
22.9%
 158
18.2%
 69
7.9%
 14
1.6%
 1
0.1%
 Episcopal Church  -2.48%
 41
8.6%
 144
30.4%
 101
21.3%
 106
22.4%
 61
12.9%
 16
3.4%
 5
1.1%
 Presbyterian
Church (U.S.A.) 		 -2.61%
 71
13.1%
 238
43.8%
 102
18.8%
 81
14.9%
 44
8.1%
 6
1.1%
 2
0.4%
 United Church
of Christ 		 -2.83%
 21
8.5%
 81
32.7%
 46
18.5%
 62
25.0%
 27
10.9%
 10
4.0%
 1
0.4%

Well, instead of combining categories I ran correlation statistics on all six meaningful responses.  (You could argue that not responding is meaningful, and looking at the numbers there is a case to be made – why do more Episcopalians not want to respond? – but that is a topic for another time.)   However, from crunching the numbers the first time I noticed that responses from those affiliated with the Catholic Church were frequently outliers, something I pointed out in the first post and something that can be seen in this data set.  It has been observed in other reports that cultural and immigration factors play a larger role in membership numbers for that denomination so I have chosen to exclude those responses from my analysis.

Today, the correlation statistics I calculated include both the linear correlation coefficient as well as the rank correlation.  I won’t go into that latter statistic, except to say that it is a good test for leveraging by extreme values and for none of the responses was that significant, and the only response for which it might have a slight effect is “attend once or twice a month.”

Now it turns out that my combining response categories yesterday may not have been a good way to treat the data because the correlation for “once a week” was not only pretty low, but it was inverse at that.  The only category for which there was a meaningful positive correlation (0.74) was “attend more than once a week.” For “attend once or twice a month” and “attend a few times a year” there are pretty strong negative correlations (-0.84 and -0.81 respectively).  I feel better — While my combining categories may not have been the best move, it appears that it does not substantially change the “high bar” I saw that having the correlation with even “once or twice a month” being related to decline.  At this point I feel I can stick with yesterday’s conclusions.

But having embarked on this data exploration, let me continue with a couple new analyses.

First, using the strongest positive and negative correlations let me ask, “where is the line between growing and declining.”  Now, remember this is only a guideline and not hard and fast, but if we run a linear regression on “more than once a week” we find that using this as a predictor tells us that denominations that have more than 27.5% of affiliated respondents answering in that category were growing.  Looking at the table above (and remembering to skip the Catholic Church) we see that indicator holds up pretty well.  If we do the same with “once or twice a month” we get a predictor that tells us that growing denominations have less than 14.9% of affiliated respondents give that answer.  Again, in the table above this holds up with only one exception.  So while not perfect, these two numbers give a pretty good proxy for predicting growth or decline.

So lets apply these numbers.  First, what about non-denominational churches?  While they don’t represent a denomination, by definition, and we don’t have NCC growth data for them, let’s have a look at the attendance statistics for the three most frequently reported nondenominational categories in the Religious Landscape Survey.

Category Attend
more than
once a week 		Attend
once a
week 		 Attend
once or
twice a
month 		Attend a
few times
a year 		 Attend
seldom 		Attend
never 		No
Answer
 Nondenominational
Evangelical
 138
33.4%
 171
41.4%
 62
15.0%
 22
5.3%
 12
2.9%
 7
1.7%
 1
0.2%
 Nondenominational
Charismatic
 74
43.0%
 51

29.7%

 17
9.9%
 10
5.8%
 16
9.3%
 4
2.3%
 0
0.0%
 Nondenominational
Fundamentalist
 41
39.8%
 29
28.2%
 14
13.6%
 11
10.7%
 8
7.8%
 0
0.0%
 0
0.0%

As you can see, all three have “more than once a week” numbers above the indicator, and two out of three have “once or twice a month” numbers below that indicator – and the third misses by only 0.1%.  The indication is that if these were denominations we would expect them to be growing.

OK, lets get close to home — What about Presbyterian Groups?  The survey has 22 self-reported categories of Presbyterians.  Here are a few of the more frequently reported one.

Denomination Attend
more than
once a week 		Attend
once a
week 		 Attend
once or
twice a
month 		Attend a
few times
a year 		 Attend
seldom 		Attend
never 		No
Answer
 Presbyterian
Church (U.S.A.)
 71
13.1%
 238
43.8%
 102
18.8%
 81
14.9%
 44
8.1%
 6
1.1%
 2
0.4%
Presbyterian Church
in America
 30
17.9%
 43
25.6%
 37
22.0%
 34
20.2%
 18
10.7%
 5
3.0%
 1
0.6%
 Associate Reformed
Presbyterian
 3
23.1%
 5
38.5%
 2

15.4%

 1
7.7%
 1
7.7%
 0
0.0%
 1
7.7%
 Orthodox
Presbyterian
 2
25.0%
 3
37.5%
 0
0.0%
 1
12.5%
 1
12.5%
 1
12.5%
 0
0.0%
 Evangelical
Presbyterian
 6
50.0%
 5
41.7%
 1
8.3%
0
0.0%
 0
0.0%
 0
0.0%
 0
0.0%
 Conservative
Presbyterian
 1
100%
 0
0.0%
 0
0.0%
 0
0.0%
 0
0.0%
 0
0.0%
 0
0.0%
 Presbyterian
(other not specified
evangelical)
 7
13.7%
 17
33.3%
 13
25.5%
 8
15.7%
 5
9.8%
 1
2.0%
 0
0.0%
 Liberal
Presbyterian
 0
0.0%
 1
100%
 0
0.0%
 0
0.0%
 0
0.0%
 0
0.0%
 0
0.0%
 Presbyterian
(other not specified
mainline)
 10
5.6%
 28
15.8%
 37
20.9%
 51
28,8%
 39
22.0%
 11
6.2%
 1
0.6%
 Mainline
Presbyterian
 5
4.9%
 17
16.5%
 12
11.7%
 32
31.1%
 28
27.2%
 9
8.7%
 0
0.0%

Well, maybe the most important thing about this table is a demonstration of the nature and limitations of surveys.  The first item is the statistics of small numbers.  This dataset works well for the largest denominations, but below the level of the PCA one would like to see a bigger sample.  The second is the self reporting of affiliations and it leaves me wondering if the two different mainline but unspecified categories should be folded into the PC(USA), ignored, or treated as their own group?  And what to do with our liberal and conservative friends?

However, taking the numbers at face value and using the indicators suggested above the only listed Presbyterian branch where we would expect growth is the EPC and the OPC is pretty close.  It is interesting to see the PCA numbers in the same ballpark as the PC(USA).

OK, bottom line — While I need to modify or qualify my attendance calculations from yesterday, the conclusion remains pretty much in tact.  The difference between growing and declining congregations is not in getting Christmas and Easter members to church a couple more times a year (although that would be good) but in fostering an environment were religious faith and participation is taken seriously.

On to the next data set – PC(USA) amendment voting.  Stay tuned.

National Council Of Churches Membership Data — We Can Correlate That

Leave a reply

This past Monday the National Council of Churches USA announced the release of their 2011 Yearbook, a press release that traditionally includes the membership data for the 25 largest denominations in the country.

My first reaction, after a quick look at the data, was “nothing new here — move along to something else.”

My second thought was “why don’t I just take that part of the post from last year, copy and paste it for this year, strike out the old numbers and fill in the new ones.”  In all honesty, the two sets of numbers look a lot alike and I was wondering if there was anything new worth saying about it.

Well, I finally came to my senses, remembered that my motto is “I never met a data set I didn’t like,” and on my commute home I thought about what I could do with it.  I then spent my lunch hours the rest of the week crunching data.  Yup, that’s the way I roll.

Now, a couple of years ago I correlated the NCC data against surveys about political opinions and found that for the mainline churches the degree of membership decline correlated with stronger liberal political opinions.  But, based on reading I have done in the last couple of years I have modified this hypothesis and now think that part of the problem of decline is not the political opinions of the churches per se, but rather that the problem is a lack of clear and well defined beliefs and expectations, particularly in the mainline.  That is to say that trying to be too broad in doctrine leaves those looking for a church uncertain about that church and no need to be committed to anything in particular.  It is the hot and cold of Laodicea and shown on a small scale by the division of the Londonderry Presbyterian Church which split and, at least when I wrote about it a year and a half ago, the combined membership of the two churches had nearly doubled over what it was before the split.  (Now, when I get the the end of this post I won’t necessarily have proven that thesis, but I think it will support it.)

Now, to give credit where credit is due, this is not something I pulled out of thin air but, as I said, saw in the studies and essays I was reading.  Prominent among these, in the chronological order in which I read them: Beau Weston, Rebuilding the Presbyterian Establishment; Dean Hoge, Donald Luidens, and Benton Johnson, Vanishing Boundaries; Bradley Wright, Christians are hate-filled hypocrites… and other myths you’ve been told;  and Kenda Creasy Dean, Almost Christian.

So, I set about seeing if I could find correlations between indicators of strength of faith and the NCC data.  Thanks to Brad Wright’s book I knew that the Religious Landscape Survey by the Pew Forum On Religion & Public Life was a wealth of information.  The data is split into two reports, the Religious Affiliation Report (full report ) and the Religious Beliefs and Practices Report (full report ).  To tinker a little more, I downloaded The U.S. Religious Landscape Survey dataset from the Pew Research Center.  The resulting analysis and data manipulation is mine and it should be kept in mind that “The Pew Research Center and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life bear no responsibility for the analyses or interpretations of the data presented here.”  OK, you got the required disclaimer.

I was fun look at the raw data because there are some interesting details in there although they are generally not related to this present discussion.  For example, of the 480 participants who identified themselves with the Assemblies of God, 420 said there was a heaven but 432 said there was a hell.  While that may say something interesting about the theology, in fairness I would have trouble with the wording of the study’s questions because they were base on merit, that is if someone led “a good life” and not on Christ’s free gift of eternal life.  Since individuals could self-identify the denomination they were with it is interesting to note that there is one who said Emerging Church, one each who identified as Liberal Presbyterian and Conservative Presbyterian.  But my favorite has to be the two individuals who identified themselves as an Electronic Ministries Baptist and Electronic Ministries Pentecostal.  Can I now call myself a Virtual Ministries Presbyterian?  We will have to wait to see when the Open Source Church appears.   I am going to keep playing with the dataset and see what other interesting details I can find.

Anyway, some additional interpretation details: The survey was conducted in 2007 so technically a bit of a time offset from the 2010 NCC data.  In addition, the data package comes with one database for the continental U.S. and another for Alaska and Hawai’i.  I only number-crunched the former which contains a bit over 35000 records.  For the first set of correlations with the demographic data I have taken the numbers from Appendix 3 of the Religious Affiliation report which lists results as percentages with no decimal places.  Results for religious behavior that I calculated from the provided dataset are reported as percentages with one decimal place.  And for those interested in trying it themselves at home, the data is provided in SPSS format which you can also read with the open source package PSPP.  I will talk about correlation coefficients which test only for a linear correlation and the data is supplied with a weighting scheme designed to reflect reliability, which I did not use for this initial exploration.

For the NCC data, of the 25 churches on the list only 14 provided numbers for membership change. Of these, we saw notable growth in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (+1.42%), and significant growth in the Jehovah’s Witnesses (+4.37%) and the Seventh-Day Adventists (+4.31%).  There was small growth in the Roman Catholic church (+0.57%), the Assemblies of God (+0.52%), and the Church of God (Cleveland, Tenn.) (+0.38%).  The mainline/oldline churches had typical declines including the United Methodist Church (-1.01%), the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (-1.96%), Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (-2.61%), the Episcopal Church (-2.48%), the American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A. (-1.55%), and the United Church of Christ (-2.83%).  Slightly smaller declines were experienced by more evangelical churches, such as the Southern Baptist Convention (-0.42%) and the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod (-1.08%).

All of the correlations I ran are available in a web-published Google spreadsheet and the sheet also contains the 2009 membership changes and correlations with those as well.  For this discussion I only use the 2010 membership changes.  As always, use at your own risk.  For those who don’t regularly work with correlations a quick introduction: If the number is positive the correlation is direct and if negative it is inverse.  Correlation statistics range in absolute value from 1, which is perfect, to 0 (zero) when there is no correlation.  Values of 0.8 and greater are generally considered strong correlations and values below 0.5 have weak to no correlation and need to be looked at carefully.  Also, this analysis assumes that the correlation is linear and I have not run tests for leverage effects by extreme values. (But as you will see in the graphs below there are a pair of high values that usually cluster nicely.)

The first demographic data I looked at was for members’ marital status and there was little to no correlation between that and a denominations growth rate.  However, looking at the extremes of age distribution we find that growing churches have a higher percentage of younger members (18-20 years old) than declining members and the declining churches have more older members (>65) than growing churches.
 
These correlations are good with 0.77 and -0.78.  The question is whether there is a cause and effect relationship.  Are growing denominations growing because they have more young people, or are more young people there because they are growing.  We can probably safely conjecture that the relationship is complex and mutual and there is a bit of each going on probably establishing a positive or negative feedback loop.

The correlation with number of children is somewhat predictable based on this preceding relationship. While families with no children are more likely at declining churches (correlation -0.63), it surprised me that the strongest correlation in the children categories was the relationship of families with one child to be at growing churches (correlation 0.81) and then to have families with two children to be completely uncorrelated (-0.03).  The correlation returns with moderate strength for three children (0.63) and for four or more not quite as strong at (0.50).  Like above, assigning dependency is problematic and there is probably a complex relationship. (Maybe something to crunch the numbers around a bit for.)

There is one other demographic relationship and that has a moderate correlation — college grads are more common at declining denominations (correlation = -0.55).

Now, what about the idea I really wanted to test – that patterns of behavior and belief that indicate more intense or dedicated religious practice are correlated with denominational growth.  The survey provides us with several of these.

First, again taking a lead from Brad Wright’s book, I look at church attendance, as self-reported.  I have combined six categories down to three with the frequent attenders (once a week or more than once a week) in one group, the occasional (less than once a week but still multiple times a year) in the second group, and the seldom to none in the last group.

In the first two cases there is a strong correlation with the frequent attenders (weekly or better) to be members of growing denominations (correlation=0.76) and the less-than-weekly to be members of declining denominations (correlation=-0.82).  For the seldom to none, they are more likely in declining denominations, but the correlation is weaker (correlation=-0.40).  For comparison purposes, the Presbyterian Panel asks a similar question and found that for members 26% responded that they attend weekly and another 38% said they attended “nearly every week.”  That total of 64% is a bit higher than the 56.9% in the RLS data, but seems a reasonable match in light of the different wording of the questions.

The survey has two ways of looking at the importance of religion to the participants.  The first is a direct question if their religion is very important, somewhat important, not too important, or not at all important.  The percentages that answered very important and somewhat important are both well correlated with the growth/decline numbers, but in opposite senses.  For those who said their religion was very important there was a correlation of 0.74 indicating they are more likely to be in growing churches.  For those who answered somewhat important, the correlation is -0.74 and they are more likely in declining denominations.

The second is a question that asks “When it comes to questions of right and wrong, which of the following do you look to most for guidance.”  Of the four choices, two were substantially preferred by respondents.  “Guided by religious teachings and beliefs” is shown with the red squares in the graph below and has a 0.77 correlation with denominational growth.  On the chart you can see the outlier to the trend at 0.57% growth which is the data point for the Roman Catholic church.  Removing that data point the correlation jumps to a strong 0.83.  As you can see, the other strong answer is “Practical experience and common sense”, shown in green, and that has an inverse correlation at -0.77.  So in growing churches the members rely more on church teaching and in declining churches the members are guided more by their own experience.  It is interesting, and somewhat surprising to this scientist, how far below the first two the reliance on philosophy and on science fall.  And both of those have almost as strong inverse correlations.


 
You can have a look at the spreadsheet for a bunch of the other correlations I ran.  It pretty much holds up that strong religious beliefs, certainty in those beliefs, and practices correlate with denominational growth while the moderate to weak responses for these things are inversely correlated and are more likely in declining denominations.

Well, crunching the numbers is the easy part.  What does this all mean and can it be applied to reverse mainline decline?

First, let me say that I think it is difficult to separate what should be the neutral practices from the doctrine.  As I said, correlation coefficients for the relationship between beliefs and growth/decline are pretty much identical to correlations between practices and growth/decline.  To put it another way, at what point does regular weekly attendance at church change from being just a religious practice to being a matter of doctrine or belief?

Another tricky point here is that for most of the indicators measured, while the doctrinal ones may be teachings of the church, what the statistics show is not the effectiveness of the churches teachings directly, but the ethos of the church and the expectation for accepting those teachings.  In other words, almost every church would want a member to be guided by the church’s teachings to determine right and wrong, but the growing denominations pass along not just the teaching, but the expectation that members take it seriously.

Finally, it has to be remembered that a denomination is composed of particular churches and in most cases we are measuring one of these on the level of the individual member and the other on the level of the denomination.  Lost in the middle are the different congregations where this is actually implemented.

So by way of conclusion here are two things that surprised me in this analysis:

The first was the uniformity of the correlations.  Yes, there were some variations but in general there were a lot that fell in the 0.7 to 0.8 range or the -0.7 to -0.8 range.  This suggests to me that you should not be looking through this to find the “silver bullet.” Instead, these measures show broad patterns that probably reflect the overall nature of the denominations rather than where to improve on one or two specific practices.

The second thing that surprised me was how high the bar was.  In looking at this data we are not seeing the line between growing and declining as being in heresy or apostasy.  We are seeing the difference in whether members attend once a week or once a month.  We are seeing the difference in whether someone is certain or God, or fairly certain of God.

Now, I welcome you to stare at the data and draw your own conclusions.  My number one take-away is that “Being Christian” is not about what you do for one-hour on Sunday morning (OK, one and a half hours if the sermon goes long and you stay for a cup of coffee.)  Rather, it is about how you live your life the other 167 hours out of the week.  It is about whether that hour influences the other 167.  It is about how your Christian faith affects the rest of your life.  To me, these data show that the indicator of a growing denomination is a pattern of faithfulness in many areas of our lives.

Your mileage may vary.  OK, now what do I do with my lunch hour next week?

Technical note:  I think it is important to note that for questions with only two choices any correlations with a third variable will be of the same magnitude and opposite sign for the two choices.  For the Guidance question above, while there were four choices, the Philosophy option and the Science option were selected by so few respondents that there are effectively only two answers, the Religion option and the Experience option. That is not the case with the demographic graph since substantial numbers of respondents fell into the age ranges between these two end groups.  Combined, the two end members represent no more than 40% of the sampled population.

Digging Into Presbyterian Statistics — PC(USA) Presbytery Growth Rates

Leave a reply

Well, I see that the U.N. Secretary General has declared that today, October 20, is the first Worldwide Statistics Day.  Now, I am not sure if that is a recognition of worldwide statistics, or a worldwide recognition of statistics, but I am only too happy to add my contribution in the spirit of the latter interpretation.

As regular readers are aware I am a bit, OK a lot, of a PresbyGeek or PresbyNerd when it comes to denominational statistics.  And I have the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) office of Research Services to thank as by “enabler.”  If you are not aware, they put out a daily Tweet with some tidbit or factoid of information.  I sometimes think that what they tweet is superficial or incomplete, but just like I do the best I can with Presbyterian History in 140 characters, they do the best that they can in that space as well.

Back about three weeks ago they put out the following tweet –

Membership increased in 2009 in 13 presbyteries. Does that include yours? http://bit.ly/cxn1mn #pcusa

That factoid got me wondering about what growth rates were long-term, and not just for 2009.

So, time to dig out some data.  Presbytery size for 2008 and 2009 came from the annual Comparative Research reports, Table 4.  The oldest edition of Table 4 that I am aware of is 1996, so turning to the trusty WayBack Machine, that data is also available.  So all of that was fed into a spreadsheet and the annualized growth rate over the 13 year period 1996-2009 was calculated along with the annual rate for 2009.

Now, looking at the data, two presbyteries (Atlantic Korean-American, Eastern Korean) were excluded because they were formed after 1996 so there is not a long-term growth rate for them over the same time period as the other presbyteries.  Two more presbyteries were seen as significant outliers and removed from the analysis as well.  In the long-term growth category Midwest Hanmi had a growth rate of 4.4%, over twice the growth rate of its next closest presbytery.  In the short-term column San Joaquin dismissed several churches in 2009 and so had a growth rate of -24.3%, ten percentage points higher than the next closest presbytery.  The concern was that when the correlation was calculated these significant outliers would leverage the correlation result.

So what do we get for these 169 presbyteries?  Here are the descriptive statistics:

  Annualized
Long-term		 2009
Short-term
Mean -1.7%  -3.0%
 Median -1.9%  -2.6%
 St. Dev.  0.8  2.4

As you can see there is generally good agreement in each distribution between the mean and median.  Between the two distributions the mean and median are significantly lower and the standard deviation of the short-term is significantly higher indicating a much broader distribution.  Visually, here are the two distributions.  Both horizontal and vertical axes are scaled the same to facilitate direct comparison of the charts.

The broader nature of the short-term distribution is now apparent but without other short-term distributions to compare it to drawing specific conclusions from this is a bit more challenging.  If fluctuations have a random nature to them stacking multiple broad annual distributions to produce the long-term distribution will generally result in a decrease in the standard deviation.

The left-ward shift in the distribution, or higher rate of decline, is statistically significant, and whether this represents a one-time higher decline or the end-member of a trend towards increasing rate of decline can not be told from this graph alone, my previous analysis of the decline rates suggests the latter.

But my main interest is in a comparison of short-term and long-term rates and particularly looking at specific presbyteries.  So, here is the graph of the correlation of short-term versus long-term growth rates.

As you can see there is noticeable scatter in the data but a general positive trend.  However, with an R-squared correlation coefficient of 0.14 the correlation is not strong.  With a slope of >1 there is the suggestion that for all presbyteries the short-term rate is of greater magnitude than the long-term rate.

But here is what I really wanted to get at:  The Research Services tweet pointed out that in 2009 13 presbyteries increased in size. (And the three with the largest percentage membership increases were excluded from this analysis as described above.) Over the long-term the membership has increased in five presbyteries (Charleston-Atlantic, Middle Tennessee, Northwest, Seattle, and the excluded Midwest Hanmi).  Of those, only Northwest (Puerto Rico) and Midwest Hanmi have shown an increase in membership over both the 13 year long-term and 2009 short-term periods.  In fact, it was probably not necessary to exclude Midwest Hanmi since for a long-term growth rate of 4.4%, the trend-line calculated above predicts a short-term rate of 6.0%, reasonably close to the actual of 5.4%.  The leverage would not have been too great.

Well, lots more could be done with this but that is enough for Worldwide Statistics Day.  If you looked carefully at the spreadsheet you can see that what I really prepared it for was my own tracking of the presbytery voting trends in the next few months.  In particular, I am very interested to see how the votes on the three big issues, the Belhar Confession, the new Form of Government, and Amendment 10-A correlate, or don’t as the case may be.  You are welcome to check back but I don’t intend it to be the “up to the minute latest and greatest source of news.”  I’ll probably update it weekly with what I can find and it will be my base for further statistical analysis.  If you are interested in that feel free to follow along.  Stay tuned…

Young People And The Church — Another Interesting And Informative Study

Leave a reply

As my regular readers are aware one of my interests and concerns is for the future of the church, especially as it relates to youth in the church and keeping them involved in the church.  Part of my interest of course is because my household is a bit of a focus group, research study, or test bed for youth in the church.  At the present time I have one who has left the mainline for an evangelical church, one who seems to be finding a home in the confessional leanings of the mainline, and one who is trying to find their way between those two.  I do however count myself fortunate that all three of my children are involved in active congregations.

So it was with much interest that I listened to the October 3rd edition of the White Horse Inn where host Michael Horton interviewed Kenda Creasy Dean, Methodist Elder and Princeton Theological Seminary professor, on her new book Almost Christian: What the faith of our teenagers is telling the American Church.  I have added this to my list of books to acquire (easy) and read (got to figure where in the queue to place it).  In the interview there was a ton of great information drawn from the National Study of Youth and Religion project and published in the book.  While a lot of the interview, and probably the book as well, was about the faith and beliefs of teenagers and “moralistic therapeutic deism”, what was of most interest to me was the discussion about the study’s findings related to what did, and did not, make youth stick with the church as they got older.  For all of the details on the nature of the teenagers’ faith, including the great description of it as “benign whateverism,” I encourage you to listen to all 33 minutes of the interview.

So, here are a couple of the quotes I found most informative, hopefully not too out of context  (listen to the interview for that), and cited statistics from Prof. Dean (not necessarily in order and somewhat edited from conversational language to written form):

[Talking about teens with highly devoted faiths] Four things stood out
for me: One was that they had what I call “a peculiar God story.” They
had a God story that was distinct to their community’s understanding of
the world. They were able to articulate that God story… The second
thing that they had was a community of faith that mattered to them
deeply and they felt like they belonged… The family sense was extended
to faith communities, and they also felt like they belonged spiritually
though. It wasn’t just a social connection, they really felt cosmically
connected to God in their congregations… The third thing was that
they had a sense of, I call it a sense of vocation, a sense of purpose, a
divinely inspired purpose maybe. A sense that God had put them here for
a reason and that reason was to help participate in God’s plan for the
world in some way. And the last thing, and this is really striking, is
that these particular kids, the highly devoted kids in the study, had
markedly higher levels of hope than anybody else.

The young people who have highly devoted faiths, that’s the 8% of the
kids in the study who actually did find faith as a pivot point around
which they organized their lives in explicit ways, had much stronger
connections to adults in their communities of faith, and to adults in
general, than their peers who did not have highly devoted faiths.  I
also think its true that we really tend to overestimate the amount of
time that young people are spending in congregations, even if they are
active in a congregation, they are likely to be around members of the
congregation an hour or two a week. And we overestimate the difference
that hour or two makes in their lives — they don’t actually have enough
time to form deep connections.  And over and over again studies show
that pastors think that people come to church because of the pastor or
because of their interest in deepening their faith or whatever.  Most
lay people say they come to church because of the relationships.

One of the interesting things about the longitudinal studies, one of the
findings was that the most significant factor in whether a young
person’s faith weathers the transition from high school to the young
adult years is the religiosity of parents while they were teenagers.

The interview has a great extended discussion about the use of the catechism and how it was intended for use within the household, even to the point of posting it on the dining room wall and discussing it around the dinner table.  Prof. Dean makes two interesting points about this beyond the value for teaching the faith.  The first is that it is being done in the household setting.  The second is that the catechism provides youth, and all of us for that matter, with a language to talk about our faith.  She points out that in the study most teenagers “have very, very few language resources when it comes to faith.”

Prof. Dean is an engaging speaker and produces a couple of good lines to make you smile:

What we haven’t been able to do very well is to tell the Christian story, or to teach the Christian story, in a way that it looks like it matters in this world of competing narratives…  [I]t means that young people need to be in contact with folks whose lives are demonstrably different because of their faith.  Because just hearing about it is like hearing Cinderella, and Cinderella doesn’t really make a difference about the way we live our lives — it’s a story we tell.  And for a lot of young people that’s the way they experience their encounter with the Christian story as well.

[Talking about parents letting children “chose for themselves”] Well the
way we let them chose for themselves for a couple of generations was to
just sort of assume that when they got old enough we might expose them
to religion but we wouldn’t actually teach them anything because we want
them to be free to chose for themselves.  And the interesting thing is
we don’t have that confidence when it comes to Algebra, but somehow when
it comes to faith we just sort of thought it would emerge when the time
is right.

And a finding that runs counter to many mainline churches I know and to Prof. Dean’s expectations:

[Talking about vocation and social justice and mainline youth being less likely to associate moral responsibility with following Jesus Christ.] There may be less living it out, but there is certainly less living it out and connecting it to your faith.  And as a mainline Protestant this finding horrified me — this is like “oh man, how have we missed this?” But I think one of the reasons is mainline Protestants… we tend to shy away from any kind of God language whatsoever. Well, the effect of that is, you might be the most socially active congregation in the world but if you never connected it to your faith young people obviously assume it’s because you are nice people.  We go on these mission trips where we never talk about God because we are nice people, not because we are Christian and this is how Christ called us to treat one another. In fact one of the findings in the longitudinal study is that when it comes down to it the practices that matter in helping faith endure past the high school years prayer and reading the Bible matter a lot.  Going on mission trips don’t make a bit of difference.

Kenda Creasy Dean has a lot to say about how youth and young adults get integrated into the church — in fact one of the chapters in her book is titled “Mormon Envy.”  This integration of young people is something I have also come to appreciate about the LDS church.  The LDS communities have several features that make them particularly good at passing on their faith.  For more on this I would point you to a Beliefnet blog Flunking Sainthood and their comments on Dean’s book.  Here are a couple of relevant quotes from the interview:

What Mormons have that other communities have not really looked at as intentionally is faithful parents.  It’s one of the most striking findings from the study is how closely young peoples’ faith mirrors their parents’ faith.  As you know, families are the most important faith community if you’re part of the Church of Latter Day Saints. But parents are hugely influential as conduits of faith in Mormon families.  That tends to be less true for example, I’m a mainline Protestant, for mainline Protestants a common scenario would be that parents will think faith is important but they don’t have enough faith formation themselves to have any confidence at handing it on to their children themselves.  So, they take their kids to church to “get them done” by the professionals who can hand on faith in their stead.  Well, that turns out not be be as effective as when it is passed on in the context of a family community.

I think a lot of Protestants tend to think, and I tend to think this way myself, “my kids didn’t get this while they were in high school, but there is plenty of time, they’ll get it eventually.” … Mormon urgency doesn’t allow for that.

Based on my experience and previous reading these are the quotes that really resonated with me from an interview that was full of interesting data and interpretation.  And one of the things that I very much appreciated was Prof. Dean’s acknowledgement of the number of times where the data surprised her.

What is the message for the church?  For me it is a validation that we need to invite the youth to be active members of the church, not just attending services and youth group on Sunday, but encouraging them to be active in some area of ministry in the congregation where they build relationships across generations, we can challenge them to do something, and through their activity they can not just hear, but participate in the God story of the congregation.  Secondly, we need to communicate to parents how important a role they play — that they can not leave the religious education of their kids to the church but they have to be the primary educators.  And then the church has to give them the tools to do that.

If you want more on-line there is an excerpt from the book available and another interview on Patheos.

To close, here is a quote Prof. Dean gave from Tony Campolo –

We are not going to lose this generation because we ask too much, we are going to lose them because we ask too little.

Addendum: Now, here is an interesting parallel that arose yesterday in our church’s education hour.  My friend Scott was teaching a class based on Albert Raboteau‘s book Slave Religion.  After discussing how slave owners used Christianity as a justification for having slaves but then kept the religion from them someone asked the obvious question, “why would a slave convert to Christianity if it justified their oppression?”  Scott summarized the answer from Raboteau (p. 244-246) as 1) The Bible provided a language to talk to God, 2) they saw the parallel of their situation to the story of Israel in bondage in Egypt and their liberation, and 3) it provided hope for the future, particularly regarding eternity.  I was struck by how these three paralleled Dean’s points about the highly devoted youth — How the Israel story for the slaves is part of their God story that is distinct to the community’s understanding of the world.  How they both find the distinctive of hope and eschatological vision.  And while there is not really a parallel in Dean’s four central characteristics of devoted teens to the language point, it does correspond to how the highly devoted teens have acquired the language to talk about God.  Another distinctive of later Slave Religion that was mentioned but not included in this list was the high-level community structure and participatory worship, especially regarding singing. I was struck by how these characteristics of, shall I say, devoted Christianity are similar across cultural contexts.

Thoughts On Modeling The Future Of The Mainline Churches

Leave a reply
It requires a very unusual mind to undertake the analysis of the obvious.  — Alfred North Whitehead

In a couple of weeks I will be taking my annual vacation and this year I will have to pack light.  No thick volumes on the ecumenical movement or church history this year.  After looking around and thinking about this I decided to take along for reading several of the articles in a collection on the Patheos web site on The Future of Mainline Protestantism.  This is an interesting collection of opinions coming almost completely from progressive authors.  I know several of the authors, have heard several more speak, and have read other works by most of the rest.  And based on the skimming I have done so far, they all see a positive future for the mainline.  So check back at the end of the month when I’ll post my thoughts on what I have read from there.

But in preparation for that I have started going through a series of purely mathematical thought exercises about possible numerical futures for the mainline, and specifically the PC(USA).  For the most part these are intended to be disconnected from theological, institutional or political specifics, although the more detailed model at the end does use some of that.  They are also intended to be general concept models that represent particular cases, not specific predictions of the size of the church in fifty years.  On the one hand, I will be making specific calculations based on the numbers for the PC(USA).  On the other hand, these cases apply to more than one of the mainline churches and can probably be applied to other denominations as well. So here is what I have thought about.

Case 1 – Status quo
At the present time the mainline denominations are all declining in membership at the rate of a few percent per year.  Clearly if this continues into the future each will reach a point where that church will not be viable.

For example, for 2009 the PC(USA) reported a total membership of 2,077,138, a net loss of 63,027 from the year before.  A quick calculation shows that with a constant loss of this many members the denomination would reach zero in 33 years in 2042.

As you can probably figure out this is not realistic for a number of reasons, some of which I’ll talk about in the last, and most complex, model.  A better way to look at the status quo is to consider a constant rate of loss.  In 2008 the rate was 3% and in 2009 it was 2.9% so if we look at three different constant rates – 2.5%, 3.0% and 3.5% – this is what we get for the PC(USA).

PC(USA) Membership for Constant Decline Model

 Year  Constant
Number 		Constant
Rate 		   
   63,027/yr  2.5%/yr 3.0%/yr 3.5%/yr
 2010  2,014,011 2,025,210 2,014,824 2,004,438
 2020  1,383,841 1,572,230 1,485,780 1,403,673
 2030  753,571 1,220,569 1,095,650 982,967
 2040  123,301 947,564 807,959 688,354
 2042  0  900,778 760,208 641,013
 2050   735,622  595,808 482,042
 2060   571,085 439,363 337,566


Case 2 – Renewed Growth
I saw you roll your eyes at this one.  Yes, there is a case to be made that the mainline represents an out-dated model that will not survive but rather decay into oblivion as outlined in Case 1.

But remember that this is only a thought experiment.  Furthermore, while there is a denomination-wide decline in church membership, on a congregation-by-congregation level this is not necessarily so.  Several congregations in my presbytery have shown stable membership over the last ten years (example 1, example 2, example 3 ). (And I will note that this crosses theological lines.)  In addition, every so often a national entity issues a list of growing PC(USA) churches and there is a general document abut the characteristics of the fastest growing churches.  I could not quickly find that list (I’ll update here if I do) but checking three high-profile congregations I found recent (5-10 year) growth rates of 11.0%, 3.5%, and 2.6%.  This is not a scientific sample of growing churches, only a few that I checked.  The point is that the decline is not uniform across all the congregations in the PC(USA) and that is probably true of other mainline churches as well.  In fact, there is a book out there (that I have not read) that looks at 15 growing Presbyterian churches and why they are growing.

Now, without my actually saying what needs to be done to reverse the decline and begin growing, let me present the model for this case that would propose that a mainline church can get itself organized and take steps to help enough congregations reverse their decline and begin growing in the next decade so that beginning in 2020 the denomination as a whole can begin growing at 1% per year.

(The disclaimers: I am not advocating anything specific at this time, and especially not advocating a cookie-cutter one-size-fits-all franchise scheme for the mainline denominations that would produce a business plan for homogenous churches that are all the same. And I do know that the PC(USA) has been working on doing this one way or another, with out a reversal of the membership decline, for years now. I am also well aware of some of the other complexities of church growth these days, such as the argument that when churches grow all they are really doing is attracting members that are leaving other churches so church growth in many cases is competition for a limited, and declining, resource.  Remember, this is just a thought experiment.)

So here is what the reversal model looks like:

PC(USA) Membership For The Reversal Model

Year Annual
Growth
Rate		 Membership
 2009    2,077,138
 2010  -3.0%  2,014,824
 2011  -2.6%  1,962,438
 2012  -2.2%  1,919,265
 2013  -1.8%  1,884,718
 2014  -1.4%  1,858,332
 2015  -1.0%  1,839,749
 2016  -0.6%  1,828,710
 2017  -0.2%  1,825,053
 2018  0.2%  1,828,703
 2019  0.6%  1,839,675
 2020  1.0%  1,858,072
 2030  1.0%  2,052,467
 2040  1.0%  2,267,201
 2050  1.0%  2,504,400
 2060  1.0%  2,766,416

Case 3 – Partitioning or Pruning Model
What if, to use the cliche, we are “right-sizing” the mainline.  Consider that the decline in the churches will continue until the target size is reached and then the membership will reach a stable equilibrium.

Well, that is the idea in the abstract but to actually crank out some numbers here I will have to propose certain conditions that I can model.  Taking the conventional wisdom that the mainline is becoming more liberal or progressive, why don’t we set as a target size the number of liberals in the church suggesting that all the conservatives will eventually be departing one way or another.

For the PC(USA) I have previously commented on the changes seen in the Presbyterian Panel surveys. (Sorry with the change in the PC(USA) web site links in that post to some of those data sources are now broken and I am trying to restore them.)  By one measure, in 2008 34% of the PC(USA) considered itself theologically conservative, 41% moderate, and 25% liberal.  Another measure is the question of whether “Only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved” where 39% agreed, 25% were not sure, and 36% disagreed.

Now, as a simple first-order model what if we say the evangelicals leave, the progressives say and the moderates split.  There is some symmetry in the survey results so for the sake of argument let’s say that the denomination’s target size is 50% of the 2009 membership and that the total membership loss rate of 3% per year comes completely from the half that is experiencing the departures so we reduce the size of those in the group that remain by 6% per year.  This is then constant rate of decline for part of the church and no decline for the other with the total size slowly approaching the target size.  Numerically this wold look like:

PC(USA) Membership for Partition Model

Year Membership
 2009  2,077,138
 2010  2,014,824
 2020  1,564,395
 2030  1,321,787
 2040  1,191,114
 2050  1,120,732
 2060  1,082,823
 Target  1,038,569

Case 3a – Complex Partitioning or Multiple Effect
OK, as a final model let us leave the realm of first-order models and consider something with two levels of complexity. As those that have looked at membership statistics know, there are many different factors involved in the mainline decline.  For this model let us take the 3% decline of the Partition Model and say that 2.5% of that is theology-based departures and it gets applied fully to the declining group.  Let us also say that there is a 0.5% decrease for other reasons – cultural, political, social – all lumped into that one decline.  This decline is applied uniformly to both groups.  (I arrived at this 0.5% number from looking at general rates of decline of Protestant denominations in the American Religious Identification Survey.)  So now, instead of “right-sizing” the denomination to a fixed target size we have a model where the membership is rapidly declining towards a target size that is declining itself, but at a much slower rate.

PC(USA) Membership for Multiple Effect Model

Year Membership
 2009  2,077,138
 2010  2,014,824
 2020  1,540,278
 2030  1,251,397
 2040  1,068,914
 2050  947,759
 2060  862,294


Putting it all together
Here is a chart showing the five different models for direct comparison.


Closing words and Commentary
As I wrap this up I should probably repeat again that these are mostly first-order models that use constant or smooth variations in the constants.  Other cases could be developed for the rapid departure of particular groups or for the outright division of the church.  And while I have modeled the partitioning into two groups you could also imagine the case where it is best modeled as three groups – conservatives, moderates and liberals each in their own partition, or maybe conservatives, emergents, and everyone else.

Having put all of these forward I will state that my own leaning at the present time is to view the future of the PC(USA), and probably some other mainline churches, as following a hybrid model where the church experiences a partition decline coupled with a general decline model.  But I think at some time, and maybe not in the next 50 years, the church will reach a “right-size” or equilibrium state where membership will hold fairly steady.  But based on these models I will say that the current PC(USA), and similar churches, will not look anything like the present church in size or structure.  Time will tell if this is right and what the church will actually look like.

But having said what I expect to happen, let me also say that I am praying for the reversal model.  I look to God to find a way for the PC(USA) and other churches to move beyond the current divisions and find a way to bring the Gospel to the world in such a way that people are attracted to the church and the numbers grow again.  It does occur to me that maybe this would require partition in order for the witness to begin again and the churches to grow.  I don’t know what the answer is but I pray we are attentive to God’s leading as we honestly and prayerfully discern together where we are going.

Now on to another general look at this sort of thing from a different angle, coming up in two or three days.

Annual Statistical Report Of The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

2 Replies

Earlier today the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) released their annual statistics in the form of the comparative statistics summary, a statement from the Office of the General Assembly, and the miscellaneous information which gives some demographic breakdowns.  On the one hand it is temping to say “there it is – nothing new” and move on to other business.  The magnitude of the numbers and the trends seen are generally in line with the trends over the previous decade.  But there are a couple of interesting numbers in the statistics I would like to bring out.

First, for the geeks in the crowd here are the background details.  I will look at the numbers from the statistical summaries for 2001 to 2009.  These can be compiled from the 2004, 2006 and 2009 reports.  (Warning: The PC(USA) has said they will roll out a new web site at the GA next week and I don’t know how many of these links will break.)  More complete statistics covering a greater time period can be found with the full Comparative Statistics but the 2009 report will not be available until the Fall and certain numbers don’t correspond between the two reports so I have limited myself to the summaries.  My compilation and calculations are available from a sheet on Google Docs .

The first number everyone looks at is the total membership of the PC(USA).  That has declined from 2,140,165 in 2008 to 2,077,138 in 2009, a loss of 63,027 members or 2.9%.  On a percentage basis, this is on the high side, only a bit lower than the 3.14% decline seen last year and well above the smallest decline of 1.68% in 2002.  Looking at the gains in membership over the last eight years, the number of youth under 18 has been a very steady percentage of the total at about 20%.  Interestingly, the number joining by certificate has declined from 31% in 2001 to 26% in 2009.  Most of this is offset by the “other” and adult profession of faith categories.

Looking at the losses, it is fairly impressive how steady each of those categories is on a percentage basis over the last eight years – by certificate 17-18% of the loss, transfer to the Church Triumphant (death) 20-21% of the loss, and the remainder, about 62%, in the “other” category which means they resigned their membership without transfer or stopped coming and were dropped from the rolls.

Considering the congregations, on a percentage basis the decline this past year marks a new high with the net loss of 94 churches translating into a 0.87% decline.  However, as you would expect, with the rate of decline of churches being less than one third the rate of decline of membership, the ratio of members per church has steadily dropped from 224/church in 2001 to 195 in 2009.  Another new high was the number of churches dissolved at 88, the previous high being 71 in 2007.

One of the numbers to keep in mind is the number of churches dismissed, 15 this year down from last year’s high of 25.  The conventional wisdom is that these churches are going to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church and in fact their Stated Clerk’s report lists 22 churches received from the PC(USA).  This is not an exact comparison since the clerk’s report is for the year since the last GA and the statistical report is for calendar year 2009.  Of those 22 congregations, the EPC report lists two new mission churches, or church plants, that were “constituted” in 2009 and “came from the PCUSA [sic]” not being “received.”  These churches probably fall into the category of dissolved on the PC(USA) books.  It would be nice to know how many of the dissolved churches were due to the presbytery closing down the church for low membership numbers, and how many were churches that ceased to be viable after a group left en mass to realign between branches without being formally dismissed by the presbytery.  I think the churches dissolved category has some more stories to tell.

We now come to one of my favorite, and maybe most enigmatic, categories, the Ministers.  First let me say that I wish we had a breakdown here between active and honorably retired ministers.  I do realize that the some honorably retired ministers are serving churches.  That breakdown will be contained in the full comparative statistics in the Fall.  Overall, the number of ministers continued the downward trend begun last year — in 2008 the church had a net loss of 82 ministers and in 2009 the net loss was 51.  But with 21,235 ministers at the end of 2009 that decline represents a small one-quarter of one percent.  The PC(USA) has just about two ministers for every church.  The numbers have gone from 1.90 ministers/church and 118 members/minister in 2001 to 1.99 ministers/church and 98 members/minister in 2009.  Lest you think this will change any time soon, the number of candidates for ministry has increased substantially from 892 in 2001 to 1182 in 2009.  That is now more than one candidate for every ten churches in the denomination.  For reference, there were only 351 ordinations in 2009, about one-third of the number of candidates.  Is it a paradox that the PC(USA) is good at developing and retaining pastoral leadership but has been loosing members for years?  (For reference, the 2008 full report listed 13,462 activeministers of which 8457 were in parish ministry.  That means that in 2008 there was less than one parish clergy per church, and that includes the associate ministers, and slightly more than one-third of the active ministers were doing something else.)

Finally, the giving.  For the first time both the total contributions and the per member contributions declined in 2009.  Total contributions were down $37 million or 3.4% while on a per member basis giving declined slightly by $4.42 to $1011.35, which is 0.4%.

Having crunched the numbers let me comment briefly on two comments the Rev. Gradye Parsons, Stated Clerk of the PC(USA) General Assembly, is quoted as making in the OGA statement.  The first is his encouragement at the increase in the number of adult baptisms in 2009.  This is clearly a cause for celebration and I in no way want to negate the importance of this number climbing from 6296 in 2008 to 6820 in 2009.  But allow me to put this in perspective over the last eight years.  Back in 2001 and 2002 there were reported 3.9 adult baptisms per 1000 members.  The ratio peaked in 2004 with 4.4 adult baptisms per 1000 members and has generally declined since then.  The ratio of 3.3 adult baptisms per 1000 members for 2009 is an improvement over both 2008 and 2007, but is still below the numbers of 6-8 years ago.

The other point the Rev. Parsons made was “the overall number in membership losses was the lowest it has been inthe last decade.”  Please allow me to go into mathematician mode and point out that this is not necessarily the good news it may appear.  Consider the PC(USA) with a steady decline, let us say 3% annually.  If it begins at some point in time with 2.1 million members this rate of decline means that in the first year it will have a net loss of 63,000 members.  In the next year the starting number is 3% smaller so the net loss is 3% smaller — 61110 members.  Similarly, the next year the net loss is 59,277 members.  In other words, with a constant rate of decline in total membership there will also be a corresponding decrease in the net loss of members when considering the actual numbers.  Even though you are losing less members on a net basis the rate of decrease remains constant.  Hopefully that makes sense.

So statistically the PC(USA) remains where it has been.  Most numbers continue the trends of the past few years and are in the ranges we have seen most of the last decade.  What this means for the future of the denomination is left as an exercise for the reader… And the GA commissioners next week.

Changes In Theological Perspective Among PC(USA) Members

Leave a reply

Warning: This is another one of my posts where the analysis is going to get really geeky really fast.  So be it — just jump to the end for the bottom line if your eyes start to glaze over.

In working on a couple of other current issues I decided that for my own edification I needed to find a metric for the theological viewpoint of the membership, not the leadership, of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and how that might be changing with time.

One motivation for this is the contention that the PC(USA) is preferentially losing conservative members.  I have previously commented that 1) the total membership loss is much higher than what can be attributed to congregation level realignment out of the PC(USA) and that 2) change in presbytery level membership can not be correlated to leadership theological views.  I had been holding the position that membership loss in the PC(USA) is broadly across the theological perspectives.  I may be wrong about that.  Here is an analysis of a different data set…

I looked at the last five Presbyterian Panel surveys: 1996, 1999, 2002, 2005, 2008.  These are the initial surveys of each new panel which serves as the “sample population” for the PC(USA) for the next three years.  That is, the 1996 survey was for the 1997-1999 panel.

In those surveys I found five questions that were asked the same way in all five surveys that pertain directly to doctrinal issues giving a direct measure of an individual’s theological viewpoint.  The five questions are:

  1. Which one of the following terms best describes your current stand on theological issues?
  2. All the world’s different religions are equally good ways of helping a person find ultimate truth
  3. The only absolute truth for humankind is in Jesus Christ
  4. Only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved
  5. There is a life beyond death

I really wish the question about the respondent’s view of the Bible had been asked the same way every time because that would also have given a good perspective on the individual’s viewpoint.  And there are a couple other questions that appear in every survey that could be considered theological indicators as well, such as “Have you ever tried to encourage someone to believe in Jesus Christ or to accept Him as a personal savior?” but these are more about spiritual practices and I thought the questions could be answered either way across the theological spectrum so were not as good of indicators..  (For the record, on this question of accepting Jesus Christ as personal savior it is very close to 60% “yes” and 40% “no” in all five surveys with no trend or statistical variation.)

Other technical details I need to mention:  The margin of error is reported as +4%.  I will only be looking at the “members” category but as I opined before 57% of “members” are ordained officers of the church and for elders they are those not currently serving on session.

Now, the first shall be last and the last shall be first so let me deal with the fifth one at the beginning.  This is easy – over the five surveys there is virtually no change with always 84-86% who agree or strongly agree, 12-14% who are not sure, and 1-3% who disagree or strongly disagree.  I would also note that there was a statement on four of the five surveys (missing in 1999) that “Jesus will return to earth some day.” The last three surveys are indistinguishable at 66-69% agree or strongly agree, 24-27% not sure, and 6-7% disagree or strongly disagree.  The first survey was a bit higher for the two agree categories (75%) with equal drops (3-4% each) in the not sure and combined disagree.  For these statements there is no indicator of change with time.

For the statement “all the world’s different religions are equally good ways of helping a person find ultimate truth” there is an interesting statistically significant variation, but not a trend.  (Note that on all these tables I have added the “combined agrees” and “combined disagrees” categories to simplify graphing and they show up as “all agrees” and “all disagrees” on the chart.)
 

 All the world’s different religions are
equally good ways of helping a person
find ultimate truth.		 1996 1999  2002 2005 2008
Strongly Agree  9  7  8  9  11
 Agree  31  28  27  23  26
 Combined Agrees  40  35  35  32  37
 Not Sure  18  18  19  25  19
 Disagree  25  29  28  24  24
 Strongly Disagree  18  18  18  20  19
 Combined Disagree
  43  47  46  44  43


It is not clear what happened here in the 2005 survey where the “agree” dropped and the “not sure” jumped up. Except for that point the responses to this question in the other surverys are all statistically indistinguishable with no clear suggestion of a trend.

When it comes to the statements about the significance of Jesus Christ, and that is not the significance in the statistical sense, there are clear trends of the sample populations moving away from the orthodox or conservative position.  The two statements are 1) “The only absolute truth for humankind is in Jesus Christ” and 2) “Only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved.”  And yes, I am taking the two agree categories as reflecting the conservative position.  Here are the numbers…

 The only absolute truth for humankind
is in Jesus Christ.		 1996 1999  2002 2005 2008
Strongly Agree  43  46  41  39  38
 Agree  29  27  28  24  21
 Combined Agrees  72  73  69  63  59
 Not Sure  1
7		  15  17  20  20
 Disagree  8  9  10  12  13
 Strongly Disagree  3  2  3  5  7
 Combined Disagree
  11  11  13  17  20


 Only followers of Jesus Christ
can be saved.		 1996 1999  2002 2005 2008
Strongly Agree  27  26  23  26  25
 Agree  19  20  20  15  14
 Combined Agrees  46  46  43  41  39
 Not Sure  25  25  23  25  25
 Disagree  20  20  23  21  19
 Strongly Disagree  8  10  11  14  17
 Combined Disagree
  28  30  34  35  36


In graphical form (and yes, the first graph is the “absolute truth” question not the “ultimate truth” question above)

In each of these there is an apparent trend with the number of those in some agreement with the statement decreasing with time, the number disagreeing increasing, and those not sure mostly to very constant.

Finally, we have the survey question asking each respondent to self-identify their theological viewpoint.  I am not a big fan of the “conservative” and “liberal” labels but I have used it throughout this post because those were the options given in the survey for this question:

 Which term best describes your
current stand on theological issues?		 1996 1999  2002 2005 2008
 Very Conservative  8  5  5  6  6
 Conservative  31  33  33  35  28
 Combined Conservatives  39  38  38  41  34
 Moderate  48  47  43  40  41
 Liberal  11  12  14  14  18
 Very Liberal  3  3  4  5  7
 Combined Liberals
  14  15  18  19  25

And graphically

It is interesting that in the first four surveys the shift seems to be from the moderates to the liberals with the conservatives fairly constant and then in the last survey group the liberals increase and the conservatives drop.  While interesting, I am hesitant to put too much weight on that last point because we saw the 2005 “bump” on the different religions question was a one-survey event.  In three years we will see if it is a new trend.

Now having laid the data out there, what does all this mean?  First, and to my surprise, there was more of a shift than I expected in these indicators from conservative to liberal.  The view of the denomination that it is growing more liberal may hold up. But what is actually changing?

One interpretation is to say that the changes in the panels represents the changes in the members of the denomination as a whole and the changes in attitudes in the survey group is explained by those joining and leaving the PC(USA).  This is still a wildly under-determined problem (that is mathematical jargon) so many different distributions of those joining and those leaving would produce this result.  For instance, you could say that those leaving broadly represent the membership but those joining are more liberal.  Or you could explain it the other way, that those joining are broadly representative and those leaving are more conservative.  And of course many different combinations in between.

The other explanation of course is that people’s minds are changing about these statements.  Rather than members with fixed opinions moving in and out of the denomination we could say that there are people remaining in the denomination that are changing their viewpoint over time.

And these are two possible end-members and the best interpretation is probably some combination of the two and the precise balance between them would require tracking over time or questions specifically designed to test for time-variability of viewpoint.

We can narrow the possible range a little bit by looking at how this breaks down for the self-identified categories for each panel year.  I do realize that the total membership number includes Ministers of Word and Sacrament as well but they represent about 1% of the total membership and so I am going to consider the effect too minor to worry about correcting for this back of the envelope calculation.  Here is how the membership numbers would be split out based on the declared theological viewpoint of the sample population:

 Year Total
Membership 		 Conservative
Members		  Moderate
Members		 Liberal
Members
 1996  2,631,466  1,026,272  1,263,104  368,405
 1999  2,560,201  972,876  1,203,294  384,030
 2002  2,451,969  931,748  1,054,347  441,354
 2005  2,313,662  948,601  925,465  439,596
 2008  2,140,165  727,656  877,468  535,041

Looking at the numbers we can see that the conservative and moderate declines can, with one exception (con
servative 2005), be explained within the denominational membership loss.  The reverse is true for the liberal component — with the exception of 2005 all the other changes show an increase in the absolute, not just the relative, numbers.   But none of these changes can be attributed to just those leaving or joining the church.  The volume of the turnover is significantly larger than the actual net loss so each group must have members added and members lost and what is listed here is the net.  (For specifics consider the 2008 membership numbers – the church had 103,488 members join, and 138,768 leave (not counting deaths).  That represents a 5% annual turnover, or to put it another way, every 20 years the PC(USA) is a whole new church.  More on that another time.)

Finally, you could speculate that the results reflect the way the respondents thought they should answer, either because of what they think the research group wants or because of how they see themselves even if their basic theological perspective has not changed.

So whether by membership turnover or change in opinion there is evidence that over the last 14 years the PC(USA) is indeed becoming a more liberal denomination at the level of the total membership. 

Finally, a note about a paradox in this data:  “Conventional wisdom” says that younger generations are more liberal, more questioning, more tolerant of other viewpoints like those the “truth” and “only way to salvation” questions ask.  Does that mean that the changing viewpoints seen in the survey questions is due to an influx of younger members?  Unfortunately not — In the 12 years between the 1996 panel to the 2008 panel the median age of the panel members has crept up from 55 to 60 years old.  The interpretation is left as an exercise for the reader.

Presbyterian Statistics Going Viral

3 Replies

I have found it interesting that more than a month after the release of statistics about the viewpoints of members of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) one particular statistic out of that report has “gone viral” on Twitter and in the blogosphere.

The report is the latest Presbyterian Panel profile that I mentioned last month when I commented not on the numbers themselves but on the use of terminology in the introductory material.

The 54 page report is full of interesting stuff that I am still digesting but the numbers that caught someone’s attention, and has now been retweeted a million times, is this one as listed in the narrative section of the report:

Members are divided about the necessity of belief in Christ for salvation… Two in five members (39%) “agree” or “strongly agree” and 36% “disagree” or “strongly disagree” that “only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved.” More elders “agree” or “strongly agree” (45%) than “disagree” or “strongly disagree” (31%) with the statement. More pastors disagree (45%) than agree (35%). A majority of specialized clergy (60%) disagree.

Let’s take this apart.  First, it is important to know the question that was asked (see page A-14 of the report):

Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with…the following statement: only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved.

Now, in looking at the responses it is important to realize that there is the terminology problem with their categories that I noted in the previous posts: When the survey uses the term “elders” it means those in the church who are ruling elders currently serving on session.  When the report uses the term “member” it means all the rest, that is everyone else who is not a teaching elder or ruling elder serving on session.  In other words, when the term “member” is used it means a mix of ruling elders not currently on session, deacons, and church members not ordained to a church office.  It is interesting to note that according to the report 21% of “members” have been ordained as elders only, 19% as deacons only, and 16% have been ordained as both an elder and deacon.  That means that there is a category for “elder” and then 37% of the “members” category are also ruling elders.  (And while the numbers would probably be fairly small, I would also be curious how many of the “members” have been released from the exercise of ordained office or had given up their ordinations all together.)  It also means that a minority (43%) of the “members” are not officers of the church.  And it is interesting to note that “elders” were the best at returning the survey (79%), “ministers” next at 70%, and “members” only returned 59%.  So within the mixed category of “member” were any of the different components (ruling elders, deacons, non-ordained) more or less likely to return the survey?

(Three quick points of commentary on these numbers:  1) I won’t discuss it further now, but there seem to be some important implications for a church when a majority of the members are ordained officers in the church.  2) Does breaking out the opinions of only the ruling elders currently serving on session reinforce the too common belief that our ordination as an elder only really matters when we are serving on session?  3) What I would really like to see is the panel profile break out the opinions of the non-ordained members, or am I missing that in the report?)

So getting back to the question asked in the survey, here is how respondents agreed with “only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved.”

Response Members  Members
(non-elders)		  Elders Pastors Specialized
Clergy
 strongly agree  25%  24%  27%  21%  12%
 agree  14%  12%  18%  14%  10%
 neutral or not sure  25%  26%  23%  20%  18%
 disagree  19%  19%  19%  24%  24%
 strongly disagree  17%  20%  12%  21%  36%

 
A couple of notes: 1) The “Members (non-elders)” category is my adjustment of the members number based on the (possibly risky) assumption that the ruling elders mixed in with the members have the same opinions as the “elders” category.  While tempting to extrapolate that deacons think like ruling elders, I won’t take the correction that far. 2) In the survey of the 1453 “ministers” that responded there were 982 pastors (67.6%) and 471 in specialized ministry (32.4%). This is a very close match to the 31.9% of “Active Ministers” that are not in parish ministry according to the 2008 Membership Statistics.  3) Finally, the margin of error is reported as +4% so that differences of less than 8% are not statistically significant.

What does all this mean?  First, with one exception, members, members (non-elders), elders and pastors all responded the same within the margin of error.  The one exception is that the 21% of pastors that strongly disagreed was statistically meaningfully above the 12% of elders with that response.  The other important difference is that on the extremes the specialized clergy were statistically different from every other category with less strongly agreeing (9 to 15% less) and more strongly disagreeing (15 to 24% more).

If we now consider the “orthodox” answer to this question to be that there is “salvation in Christ alone” (cf. Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 60) the most interesting thing is that the most orthodox category is the ruling elders with 45% of respondents either agreeing or strongly agreeing.  To be fair, combining boxes like that raises the uncertainty of the combined values to +5.6% so now an 11% spread between results is necessary making the only statistically distinct difference between the specialized ministry category and all the other ones.  On the other end, the first four groups disagree or strongly disagree with the statement from about 31% to 45% so pastors are distinguishable from elders.  Those in specialized ministry expressed 60% disagreement.

Clearly, if subscription to the Westminster Standards were still a requirement for ordination in the mainline American Presbyterian church a sizable group would be declaring a departure.  Here is where I would be interested in what the non-ordained members believe because all that is required for membership is affirmation of Jesus Christ as savior.  It is when we become ordained that we agree to be “instructed and led” by the confessions.

Looking at the preceding question in the survey does raise some questions about how the respondents interpreted the statement “only followers of Jesus can be saved.”  The question before it was “the only absolute truth for humankind is in Jesus Christ.”  For this statement there was significantly more agreement with that statemen
t.

Response Members  Members
(non-elders)		  Elders Pastors Specialized
Clergy
 strongly agree  38%  34%  44%  42%  25%
 agree  21%  19%  24%  24%  19%
 neutral or not sure  20%  22%  17%  12%  15%
 disagree  13%  14%  11%  17%  25%
 strongly disagree  7%  9%  4%  5%  15%


So there is a significant shift to agreement with the statement that Jesus is absolute truth.  In fact, now 20%, 23%, 15%, 22%, and 40% disagree or strongly disagree with the statement.  The drop is 15% to 20% in all categories.  This is more reassuring about the strength of the orthodox viewpoints in the PC(USA) and seems to point to a natural human reaction that it is more comfortable to talk about the relatively impersonal idea of Jesus as absolute truth but being less comfortable when it gets to the personal by saying that my neighbor is not saved if they don’t believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.  Or, I could be over-explaining this because the responses to the statement “all the world’s different religions are equally good ways of helping a person find ultimate truth” look more like the responses, actually the reversed responses, to “only followers of Jesus Christ can be saved.”

Besides the tweets there has been response on blogs as well — I will highlight two of those.  First, the blog that has probably been the most heavily linked to is the comment on all this by the Rev. Albert Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY.  He looks at the results of the survey in the context of the overall decline and his perceived liberalization of the PC(USA).  There is also an interesting article on Stand Firm that takes issue with the design and reporting of the survey which in their opinion was poor on both counts and hides some of the results.

That is enough drilling into these statistics for today, but I want to turn to another set of statistics that was just released, the denominational membership statistics in the National Council of Churches yearbook.  (For one take on the relationship of information in the panel survey to the NCC membership changes see my search for a correlation last year.)

First, a quick review of the source of the NCC data:  The data is self-reported by the denominations.  Some are not as into statistics as the PC(USA) so their data should be viewed as round numbers.  For example, the National Baptist Convention reports an even 5 million members with no update reported.  In fact 12 of the 25 largest churches did not report updates.  Additionally, the number of members reported here is not necessarily the same category of members reported elsewhere.  The PC(USA) reports 2,844,952 in the NCC report but only 2,140,165 in the statistical report.  Clearly the NCC number is a broader measure of membership including baptized children and maybe inactive members while the in-house statistical report is only active communicant members on which per capita is collected.

So what did the NCC say?  Five of the 25 largest denominations reported gains: Jehovah’s Witnesses (+2.00%), Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee), (+1.76%), Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (+1.71%), Roman Catholic (+1.49%), and the Assemblies of God (+1.27%).  As mentioned, twelve did not report and the remaining eight declined: Southern Baptist Convention (-0.24%), United Methodist Church (-0.98%), Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (-1.62), Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod (-1.92%), American Baptist Churches (-2.00%), The Episcopal Church (-2.81%), United Church of Christ (-2.93%), Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (-3.28%).

While some numbers look close to last year (e.g. SBC, ELCA) some have changed a bit (e.g. AOG from 0.96% to 1.27%, PC(USA) from -2.79% to -3.28%) and the UCC has significantly changed (from -6.01% to -2.93%).  I won’t redo the correlation chart from last year and instead leave any interpretation of the numbers as an exercise for the reader.  Have fun.

EPC General Assembly, PC(USA) Membership Statistics, Ecumenical Relations — Yes, There Is A Thread There

It may sound like the set-up line for one of Johnny Carson’s Karmac the Great routines, but with the interesting timing of the release of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) membership numbers the week before the Evangelical Presbyterian Church’s 29th General Assembly some may see it as a Divine Comedy. (And I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out all the possible meanings of that.)

I will do a more focused run-down of the EPC GA in a later post, especially the interesting document that they adopted providing their formal definition and direction regarding what it means to be a missional church.  That, in my opinion, is the most exciting thing to come out of the Assembly.

But here I want to close the loop on all the EPC/PC(USA) issues that are on the table.  Even after this GA the issues are still on the table and this will not be any sort of final word.  In fact, they will probably keep going for a while yet…

For the EPC side with reports from the General Assembly I will go to my regular reads — Michael McCarty at Around the Scuttlebutt and David Fischler at The Reformed Pastor.  For the topics in this post it is mainly the Rev. Fischler.  (Thanks for all the detail.)

Actions at the EPC General Assembly
One of the topics that I discussed in my pre-Assembly summary was the polity dance that the EPC is working through to be able to accommodate both egalitarian and complimentarian churches in their structure.  Mid-America Presbytery brought an overture proposing a dual “affinity presbytery” structure but ahead of the meeting the PJC ruled the overture was out of order because structural changes like those proposed would require new language in the Book of Order.  The Presbytery said they would not contest the PJC ruling and the Assembly upheld it.  (For more details check out David’s Day 2 Report.)  What came out of this particular debate was a proposal for an interim committee to “to explore ways to provide a pathway to unity while protecting freedom of conscience.”  The committee was approved by the Assembly the next day.  The committee will include two elders from each presbytery including the New Wineskins Transitional Presbytery and will report back at next year’s Assembly. (Day 3 Part 2 Report)

On the last day of the Assembly the Fraternal Relations Committee brought a recommendation, and it appears the Assembly concurred, “to continue to communicate with the PC(USA) according to biblical principles and to encourage ‘face-to-face’ talks.”  (Day 4 Report)

More on that in a minute, but first the PC(USA) item…

PC(USA) Membership Numbers — The Response
For anyone just joining the conversation this may seem like a strange jump, but while the churches realigning from the PC(USA) to the EPC are not the largest group leaving the denomination, it is the largest single “identifiable” destination.  That is in contrast to those who “drift off” and are removed from the rolls or individually transfer to a variety of other churches.  And as Scott comments on my discussion of the membership statistics, the departures to the EPC are just one component of the departures from the PC(USA) for people who are unhappy with the negative climate they see in the church.

The membership statistics elicited responses from the wide community of PC(USA) and other Reformed bloggers.  Among these:

  • The Rev. Bruce Reyes-Chow, Moderator of the General Assembly, comments that the denomination operates with an out-dated world view.
  • Jody Harrington at Quotidian Grace points out that this decline is bigger than just this one denomination.
  • On The Heidelblog R. Scott Clark discusses what the statistics mean about active members of the PC(USA) if you were to clear the roles and also the implications for the EPC.
  • Rev Kim at Called to be: The Pastor’s Wife and the Pastor reflects on what the decline looks like as a pastor serving a congregation.
  • And John Shuck of Shuck and Jive, in a post titled “Presbyterian Pruning” wonders whether this decline is actually a good thing for the denomination.  He has a number of interesting thoughts including “Maybe it is good news that the denomination is losing members. Perhaps it is a sign that people are growing up, thinking for themselves, and have no need of evangelists who want to save them from the pits of hell.” And “So I will expect more and more huge losses for the PCUSA until progressives and traditionalists part ways. I don’t think this will happen by design, but by attrition.”  (And if you did not catch it the reference to “no need of evangelists” is a direct response Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons’ call for us to be evangelists.)

As you can see, many of those watching the PC(USA) do not see the membership decline as isolated from other branches, although individual perspectives vary.

EPC and PC(USA) Ecumenical Relations
As you can see from the EPC response above, and my previous comments about the PC(USA) Investigating Committee, this is a sensitive topic right at the moment. 

To recap, the last PC(USA) General Assembly set up the investigating committee to check out charges that the EPC was actively recruiting churches away from the PC(USA).  Again, Viola Larson has some comments about this and the possibility that the meeting in her presbytery was not well publicized.

Now, Michael McCarty has some details of one encounter between the investigating committee and a church.  He relates the follow
ing:

But at the [EPC] GA, I met several folks whose congregations went directlyfrom the PC(USA) to a geographic EPC presbytery. Their congregationsdid meet with representatives of the “investigating” committee,although the committee members were surprised that ruling elders andmembers attended. (They had “invited” only the pastors.)

Theirexperience was telling. After the pastors, elders and members relatedhow their congregations initiated the move, and initiated the contactwith the EPC, the committee representatives interjected withdeclarative “questions” such as “Well, you knew that what you weredoing was wrong, correct?” or “You never proved that the PC(USA) wasapostate, so leaving was a violation of ordination vows, right?”

Whenthe EPC members asked their inquisitors “Wait, we thought you wanted toknow that we were not recruited. It sounds as if you have already madeup your mind that we were recruited, although we were not, and are justlooking for sound bites to support your position. Is that correct?”

Stunningly, the PC(USA)’s response was “That is correct.”

One polity point – I will accept the account here that only the pastor was invited to the meeting, but in our polity I don’t view that as appropriate.  While I could accept excluding at-large members, the meeting should be held with the Session since that is the governing body of the congregation.  After all, when the presbytery meets with the church every three years under G-11.0502c it meets with the full session.

Now, I must admit that I viewed this account with a certain degree of caution, this being the account from one side of a meeting.  Until yesterday…

At church yesterday, out of the blue and without prompting, I had a member of my congregation come up and describe to me a similar meeting that a family member of theirs was at.  Since it was in a different synod I did not know the details, but as described it seemed like one of these meetings.  To me one of the most fascinating aspects was that the church was a PC(USA) congregation that, while having sympathies for the New Wineskins churches, had chosen not to realign with the EPC but stay with the PC(USA).  Never the less, the description of how the presbytery/investigating committee came into the meeting was described as “adversarial.”  After hearing their description and how upset my friend was at what happened at their relative’s church I now have a lot more respect for Mr. McCarty’s account.

But I want to close with a sign of hope.  While some may debate if this news account can be looked at as a positive outcome from all aspects, at least if you want to look at the total number of people in the pews this is a win-win situation.  (And yes, I realize that there is a lot of painful history leading up to this point.) (Update: Michael McCarty has posted a discussion of this painful history at Londonderry and some info with slightly different numbers for membership and worshipers.)

The Eagle-Tribune of North Andover, Mass., has a story titled “Divided Congregation Flourishes as Two New Groups.”  It is about the Londonderry Presbyterian Church which divided in 2007.  The article relates that at that time there were 375 members of the congregation.  A large group left the church and founded the Orchard Christian Fellowship in the EPC.  In the nearly two years since the split the continuing PC(USA) congregation has grown from 39 to 224 members.  The EPC congregation has also flourished and now numbers 450 members.  Doing the math, what was a congregation of 375 is now two respectable churches with a combined membership of about 675, a number approaching double the original size. (1.82 times larger to be precise.)

Is there a lesson in here about finding ways to get past our controversies quickly for the sake of the Gospel?  I do realize some may only see the true Gospel or True Church in one or the other of these churches.  But maybe both sides can see the outcome as beneficial for them if they realize that getting the division done quickly, while it may not be the best display of Christian unity, at least sends a better message than long, drawn out court battles.  And maybe both sides would view it as “pruning,” but this particular example seems to suggest that getting the division out of the way lets a congregation get on with their life and better focus on the mission of the church.

Just some thoughts, but I was intrigued by the Londonderry example.  And yes, I realize that it is not so easy to just say “you go your way and I’ll go mine” because there is the children property to think of.  But it does provide something to think about.

And speaking of mission, I’ll return later with a look at the newly adopted EPC view of a missional church.