WARNING: This post talks about membership numbers of the PC(USA) and individual churches. If you are one of those people who has a fit anytime someone shows the slightest interest in numbers then I invite you to skip this post and check out this intriguing link.
Like most other mainline denominations, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has been losing members since the 1960s. We are down to about half the size that we once were. And this decline logically comes from many (most likely a majority) of churches losing members on a near-yearly basis.
But the average Presbyterian church seems indifferent to this reality. Sure, there is nervousness and some small lament of the declining number of “nickels and noses,” but how many churches actually acknowledge this reality and really wish to do the hard work of trying to reverse the decline? Acknowledging churches: few. Really working to reverse it: even fewer.
So here comes my question. Let’s put aside the notion that members and numbers may not be the best indicator of a faithful or successful church (duh). Doesn’t the average Presbyterian with kids/grandkids want the church to be around for their grown kids/grandkids? The writing is on the wall but most people seem interested in preserving the church they are used to, rather than helping to create one that will be there in the future.
I think we can certainly disagree about what changes need to be made, but I think it should be pretty obvious that if we make no changes the denomination will continue to shrink and individual churches will continue to die.
So do today’s Presbyterians care about leaving a church for their children? Or are we merely concerned with making sure it lasts just as long as we do?
Last week I was at General Assembly. There we had the election of a new moderator with feet firmly planted in the PC(USA) and the postmodern world, as well as a move forward in following Jesus and being true to the whole witness of Scripture in regards to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. This week I am at the Church Unbound conference. Hearing from the likes of Shane Claiborne about being people who follow Jesus in fascninating, sacrifical, joyful and foolish ways.
In some small ways it feels like our denomination might be at the beginning of a turning point. It feels like there are enough people with voice and power who are beginning to have conversations about the fact that church as we do it is not working. Sure, it’s working for a good portion of the people sitting in the pews to some degree (arguably), but the church does not exist for its members.
I have a million and five thoughts swimming in my head about what the church should be. And I am brought back to a question I have had before. Can the typical PC(USA) church change enough to be church for the younger generations? Let me rephrase that. Can the typical PC(USA) church change enough to be church for the younger generations while they are still young? Or is the primary way to reach people who aren’t in church today with New Church Developments?
What do you think? If our churches today can change enough to reach people not in church then why haven’t we done it already and why do you think we can do it now? If we can’t do it with existing churches then how are we going to do it?
I went back to the Communications Office/Press Room the other day and got to meet Diana Ott and several of the web people in Louisville. They were all really cool and it sounds like some things are in the works for the PC(USA) internet presence.
“160
The number of staff members assigned to the 15 General Assembly committees. That’s more than 10 per committee. Many of those staff members will lobby for their favorite causes.”
Wow, the Layman news reporting is so good that they can predict the future! Because they would never interject their personal opinion into a news article, instead of documented and sourced facts.
“16
The number of staff members scheduled to work on peace and justice issues - generally a catchall for liberal social agendas.”
Even if they are right on this one, it’s still opinion or at best an unsupported speculative conclusion.
“2
The number of staff members assigned to work with evangelism and church growth in a denomination that has shrunken from 4.2 million members in 1965 to 2.8 million members in 2006.”
Hmmmm… I met at least three denominational people yesterday working the the New Church Development office and with the website Presbygrow (which has as its tagline “Growing healthy, missional churches in the PC(USA)”). And that doesn’t include Eric Hoey or anyone else from the Evangelism office.
And just for your information, the Presbyterian Lay Committee started in 1965 - the exact year they reference above as the start of our numerical decline. Coincidence?
1) The live blog for GA came alive. I think there were only two or three of us when it started but by the end we had over 20 potential bloggers and who knows how many were reading it. Most of us were at the Assembly or watching it streaming, so it became less of a play-by-play and more commentary. At times the commentary was insightful, funny, sarcastic, and maybe even uncalled for. But it was real, honest, and brought a group together that had never been together before. I look forward to using it the rest of this week and if you haven’t checked it out give it a try. It’ll probably be most active towards the Thursday and Friday sessions.
2) Bruce Reyes-Chow was elected moderator of the General Assembly. I think it all started with a Facebook group started by Jon Phillips that sought to find a young adult candidate for moderator. Shortly after that I got an email from Bruce asking me if I would be on board if he hypothetically ran for moderator. So I said hypothetically, you bet! Bruce made me his Social Network Coordinator - which meant I was supposed to create and maintain the Facebook page. This was something Bruce was more than capable of doing himself, but that’s just how Bruce is.
I don’t know if I really believed that it would happen. I dearly wanted it to happen, but I figured that too many commissioners wouldn’t be able to see past his age, his hipster-ness, or his leadership style.
I was wrong.
Bruce almost won on the first vote.
Now, I’m about to head to Bruce’s post-election party.
When I decided to support Obama in the primary, I said I would continue to support him as the Democrat nominee as long as he doesn’t conduct himself like the typical nominee. I’m looking for a true liberal, not a Democrat lite who rushes to the middle to attract swing voters. And I’m looking for someone who will choose to stand by their convictions even when it may cost them votes.
Which brings me to this story. Obama has gone back on his promise to accept public funding for his campaign. I don’t care what his reasons are - he made a promise and now he is breaking it. When he made that promise he didn’t put conditions on it (EDIT: Ok, there was one condition and that was if the Republican nominee would accept public financing - which McCain has said he is going to). He simply made a promise.
I realize that he can run a more effective campaign and have a better chance of winning if he goes the private route. I realize that outside groups can run issue ads that are for all intents and purposes candidate ads. But Obama is a smart man and he knew about both these realities when he made his promise.
I will continue to support Obama for now, but I am one step closer to voting Green again.
UPDATE: I just finished watching Obama’s video where he explains his decision. He basically says that the public financing system is broken and so he will not participate in it. So did he just learn in the last several months that it was broken? Was it not broken when he made his promise?
The other argument he makes is that this puts his campaign truly in the hands of the American people. I got the impression that he wants me to think he is taking a big risk by forgoing public financing, as if there were a chance that he wouldn’t get enough money to run.
What happened to honest talk? The reason he is not participating in this broken system is because he can get more money by forgoing it. I am really disappointed. But this is what I have come to expect from our two party system.
My father was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer at the end of last summer. This form of cancer has a high mortality rate, and unfortunately my dad was no exception. He passed away yesterday.
Of course, I have lots I could write about: his life, our relationship, the funeral planning, etc. But what I’m intrigued about right now is Twitter and Facebook. I tweeted a couple quick messages about traveling to see my Dad as he was dying, and then planning for the funeral. My Twitter messages automatically update my Facebook status, and so pretty quickly all of my FB friends as well as people following me on Twitter knew about my father’s death.
I received emails, tweets, FB messages and FB wall messages offering prayers, thoughts, help, peace and love. And it meant means a lot. Maybe there are people who think that words offered through a screen are not as “good” or “real” as words on paper, over the phone, or in person. But those people probably don’t know the feeling that comes from sharing your life with a community of friends across the country world, and receiving peace and love back within minutes from all sorts of people throughout your life.
I could list reason by reason why these relationships are as “real” as any others. But I don’t need to, because I know they are. And millions of other people know they are. It’s a reality that is here, and if you don’t get it, well, it’s not going away.
