By Steve Salyards, The GA Junkie.
From 2003 to 2014 the Church of Scotland had a 10.8% decline in the number of churches while the PCUSA had an 11.2% decline. For membership, the Church of Scotland declined 31.1% and the PCUSA declined 30.7%. Very close numbers. … The PCUSA is in blue and the Church of Scotland in red.
At about the same time that I was drilling into the religious affiliation numbers from Pew Research the Presbyterian Church (USA) Office of the General Assembly was releasing their membership numbers for 2014. Since the numbers did not show much new, and not much beyond the general pattern of the Pew numbers, I did not rush to print with an analysis. In addition, there was an interesting change in one number that I wanted to find out more about. Now I am ready so let’s dig in.
Between 2013 and 2014 the PCUSA decreased by 209 congregations, dropping from 10,038 to 9,829. An interesting point in 2014 is that the church returned to dissolving more churches (110) than they dismissed (101). The last two years the dismissed churches (2012: 110; 2013: 148) outnumbered the dissolved churches (2012: 86; 2013: 74). It is important to note that if a church majority unilaterally leaves for another denomination without the formal dismissal from the presbytery they usually either remain on the books if there is a continuing congregation or are listed as dissolved.
Regarding gains, no churches were received from other denominations and 15 churches were chartered. Here again, there are some shadow congregations as many of the 1001 New Worshiping Communities are not chartered and are working under a new model in many presbyteries so that it may be a long time, if at all, before they would be chartered and appear in these stats.
So over all the change in the number of churches in 2014 represents an annual decline of 2.1%.
Membership numbers are also declining from 1,760,200 in 2013 to 1,667,767 in 2014, an annual drop of 5.3%. The largest category of loss continues to be Other – people who leave without transferring – at 78,107. Certificate, or transfer, losses are second at 51,352 and transfers to the Church Triumphant (deaths) were 28,389. The largest categories for gains is profession of faith for those over 18 with 24,051 joining the church and 16,637 transferred in.
The PCUSA had a total of 65,415 join the church and 157,848 leave for a net loss of 92,433 and a ratio of loss to gain of 2.4.
20 Comments. Leave new
What is wrong here? Do people think that God’s Word and God’s Law have little meaning today? Are the things of the secular world more important than God’s world? Do parents take seriously God’s Word that we are to instruct “the next generation” In God’s Word and God’s way of life? We have seen what will happen when the secular world is put ahead of God’s world. I wonder what the future will hold for us.
Excellent analysis and presentation. I always assign about a 25-30% fudge or inflation factor to church reported numbers. A church may have 100 people on the roles, for example, but if 60 are consistent at worship, what really is “membership”? On that logic, true active PCUSA membership is really about 1.1-1.2 million now. At a 5% membership accounting loss per year, I project the PCUSA to bottom out at about 500-700K by the end of the decade. And you never go by reported membership numbers as to denominational health, look at per capita assessment compliance, which even in the most liberal presbyteries run only about 70% compliance, at best.
Its rhetoric or propaganda to the contrary, the PCUSA occupies the same religious space in America, as the Quakers. It has ceased to be a force in American religious life and influence generations ago. It is now more a historical artifact, a relic of a once dominate religious stream in American religious history. More consigned to the history books than the standing it had I the days of Eisenhower and Carson-Blake.
I restate my thesis is that the what is known as the PCUSA today is headed to some form of union with the UCC or CC(DC). Some congregations may even spin out to the UU. Such is the glide path of liberal Protestantism.
Pres: Again, i have not reported numbers to the denomination since 2010. If you going off the Presbytery 2012 report, tells me all I need to know. You really need to find a better hobby, or a job, but if not, I will remain in your service.
See you on the 6th.
And why Peter Gregory have you not reported numbers since 2010? Just curious.
I have a question that hasn’t been addressed, and it may not be susceptible to an answer, until events play themselves out, but it remains a question in my mind. I have read the statistic that the median size of all PCUSA congregations is less than 100, meaning that fully one half of all the congregations in the denomination are smaller in size than 100 members. Presumably, that number dwindles down to churches that have ten or fewer members, though I have not seen those statistics. While a church of that size could be new and growing, the trends toward members leaving the denomination and toward older members, and few new churches being formed, suggest to me that most of those congregations are losing members in one way or another, and are likely one day to be dissolved, as 110 churches were, last year. Is it not likely, then, that fully one half of all PCUSA congregations will, fairly suddenly, and quite quickly, cease to exist? Does anyone have the statistics on the sizes of the smallest PCUSA churches, and do they shed any light on this question?
The question about membership numbers is only 1 out of 182 manual data entry points required to fill out the annual report. Why is there is no discussion about baptisms, racial-ethnic make up of a congregation, sacramental observances, SS enrollment, professions of faith? or even relative clergy salaries, mission funding, which is a topic rich for discussion.
The obvious answer is that only one data point can be used for the benefit of the denomination in terms of financial incentive. Numbers on a roll represent numbers that can be assessed, taxed, used to derive a financial benefit, not to the local church, but to a bureaucracy and structure that has no regard to the spiritual or worldly conditions of its members.
For the PCUSA people are not valued as individuals or accorded any benefit of membership, aside from a source of revenue or something to be assessed. In this sense people are reduced as objects, things, and only have value on a balance sheet or data base in Louisville.
So in essence numbers reported are irrelevant as to any real benefit for the church, Session, or any other body, save their inherent financial value to the organization. Those of course who defend that system defend what is indefensible, personal attacks on the messenger does not negate the truth of the argument.
We all live in the brand new world of “mutual forbearance” on most if not all points of practice and polity. That’s the bargain the liberals wanted, that’s what they got. Do not like the rules, there is a process to change them. And like per capita, data entry points on some form is again a matter of individual as well as collective choice. As we were remind by Rodney King, “can’t we all just get along/”
Again those who defined the old ways defend what no longer exists. Do numbers matter to the PCUSA? Does data matter to the PCUSA? Does money matter to the PCUSA? Those are three questions, but the organization only concerns itself with the latter. Hence they get what they get.
John, excellent observation. According to the spreadsheet supplied by the Office of the General Assembly of the PCUSA, at the end of 2014:
Of the 9659 churches on the list, 28 have zero (0) members; 60 churches have between one and five (1-5) members; 197 have between six and ten (6-10) members; 289 have between eleven and fifteen (11-15) members; and 360 have between sixteen and twenty (16-20) members. So, the OGA lists 934 congregations in the PC(USA) with twenty or fewer members. Congregations with 40 or fewer members total 2453. The combined membership of those 2453 churches is 58,300. So, churches with 40 members or less constitute 25% of the denomination’s congregations but only 3.5% of the total membership (listed on the spreadsheet at 1,652,042). At the other end, there are 652 churches with membership of 500 or more. The combined membership of those 652 churches is 633,157. Those 652 churches are 6.7% of the congregations but hold 38.3% of the denomination’s members.
If you are now observing that the 9659 churches referenced and the 1,652,042 members are 70 churches and more than 17,000 members shy of the statistics released by the OGA, you would be correct. The spreadsheet of “current” information supplied by the OGA to me on May 14, 2015 shows 9659 churches with a combined total of 1,652,042 members. When I asked about the discrepancy I was told that “churches with invalid addresses and others that are no longer in the denomination (presumably dismissed or dissolved in the first quarter of 2015) are not on the distributed list.
Agree – Rev. G loves to dish it out, but cannot take it. Your point is valid.
Thank-you for taking the time and effort to answer my question.
The article seemed to me to downplay the effect of future losses in membership. It seems to me that, when all the churches likely to ask for dismissal have been dismissed, the loss of churches will continue at an accelerated pace, because the loss of membership will close those smaller churches. The denomination may lose half of its churches, long before it loses half of its membership, and that will be the real story, that the denomination has, in a few years, lost half its number of churches. Unless things change.
My goodness, you go out and cut the grass and do some chores are you return as public enemy #1. I will say this for the “Laymen”. One distinguishing characteristic of this site, as opposed to others I am aware, is the free, open and honest exchange of opinions and ideas. No promise is made or given that those points of view or reference will find agreement and consent across the spectrum. One can choose to use their real names, as I do, others not so, that is their choice, and freedom to do so. One has to respect that.
As all can see and witness, a central tactic of the religious and political left is silence and chill opinions and points of view, other than the accepted orthodoxy, by smear, character attacks, and name calling. So to Pres, Don, Pres-person, i lost count now, I can only say one can engage the opinions shared, or one can choose to see them as a thorn in the side, you have chosen the latter. I can only promise more thorns as the PCUSA is indeed the gift that keeps on giving. I do not make or produce the news, only comment.
Since my church website has been referenced, we recently went to live stream and feed of the 10:30 service. I encourage all to visit and click. Good News will be shared and Christ and He risen will be praised. Nothing to fear in that now, is there. Also the Summer Newsletter and calendar has been posted, enjoy.
I’ve often thought, one way to garner some attention and save money on Percapita) would be to remove every member from the roll except the current elders on session. A simple by-law change (easy to do under the new FoG), could provide a work around for officer elections and other important matters for the congregation. Think about it for a moment: What if the membership number showed something like 5-25 members, yet all the other numbers showed a healthy, vibrant, and growing congregation? 😉
Elder Robert does have a point. In that the the nFoG when originally adopted was roundly critiqued by conservative-traditionalists as a power grab by the GA at the expense of the Session/Presbytery in terms of the balance of powers and checks, balances. And there are some elements of that as applies to constitutional redress of grievances, who, how one is appointed as a GA delegate.
But what the nFoG did do was grant many powers and authorities to the local Sessions in terms of by-laws and rules of operating that are very, very hard to modify at other levels of the chain. And grant wide discretion to the local church on matters of voluntary behaviors relative to the larger organization. Statical reports, use of church property, what is reported to other organizations are among many examples. As i tell my elders the FoG is a permission giving/granting document, more so than a permission denied instrument. Its all in how you use it and its application.
The population of the country grows rapidly. This fact makes the PCUSA nembership decline even more telling. The PCA is growing.
I don’t think that’s true. Find the article “the Future of the PCA” on The Aquila Report.
EPC and ECO are growing, but mostly by receiving departing churches from PCUSA. Once that transfer process plays out, they will find it a challenge to grow going forward. Add up membership of PCUSA, PCA, EPC, ECO, OPC, and the number is far below the 4+ million members of the old PCUS and UPUSA in 1965. Presbyterians, liberal or conservative, are becoming fewer in number.
Excellent question and point. We attended a PCUSA church on suburbs at what used to be a large, middle sized congregation . Only 14 people in attendance in large sanctuary. Formerly mostly full most Sundays. Impossible to believe this church will remain able to fiscally operate.
The large mega evangelicals churches in Midwest are taking over.
Mr. Gregory—at your invitation I looked at your website. I even listened to two of the sermons. You mention that your congregation is loving and caring. I find a disconnect between those expressions and the posting you place on this site. Disappointing.
James
I thank you for the comments, and if in the area, please stop by. Again, concepts such as “loving and caring”, are indeed many things. Compassion, empathy, service, sympathy, are many connotations. But love and compassion is not blind acceptance or acquiescence, or blind fidelity to a corrupt and dying system. In fact if you indeed love and care for something or something you go to great lengths to point out the sins or omission or commission of that which you love.
Which in many ways is the full measure of love. If I loved you, and you were about to jump off a bridge, I would sure do more than slap you on the back and affirm your decision.
This past week I preached from Song of Solomon and the dynamics of God in human sexual love, I invite your attention.
Rev. Gregory—Perhaps you are not aware how angry and strident your comments come across then.
Along the same lines, would you suggest that the Lord Jesus was “not aware how angry and strident” His words were to the religious leaders of His day? Would you presume to judge Him for the tone of His words? On what basis, then, do you judge Rev. Gregory?