I, geekrevThe closest you want to get to looking inside the mind of Shawn Coons.

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?