Number crunching
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life released a study last month that charts the religious demographics of our country. It makes for fascinating reading. The study looks at shifts in and out of religious traditions, and its findings suggest that church attendance is just as fluid as it looks on the ground.
For instance, 28% of adults indicate that they have left the religious tradition of their childhood. But because the Pew Forum is dealing with broad categories ("Catholic," "Protestant," "Muslim"), that number is a little misleading. When shifts between Protestant denominations are taken into account, the number jumps way up to 44%. The number of those who do not identify with a religious tradition at all is 12%, and the number of those calling themselves either atheist or agnostic is 4%.
The Pew Forum study also looks at net winners and net losers in all this shifting around. The United Methodist Church, it turns out, is a net loser. 8.3% of adults said they were raised Methodist, whereas only 6.2% identify as Methodists now (which includes both the UMC and other Methodist denominations). That comes out to a net loss of 2.1%.
So what do these numbers mean? Essentially, it means that more people leave Methodist churches than stay or transfer in. In my mind, that's an issue of formation. Our people are not formed in such a way that they see their membership in the church as fundamental to their identity. So they leave.
Robin Russell has a good analysis of the Pew Forum study in the current edition of the United Methodist Reporter. My column in the upcoming issue will offer my own take on the study, and I'll link to it when it appears.
Like so many of the statistics you see about church membership these days, there is a level of frustration at what is happening to the church. But I can see some real positives as well. For instance, the 16% of the American population that is either unaffiliated, agnostic, or atheist, represents about 48 million potential Christians! For those who are called to evangelism ministries, you have your target population!
Also, if we know some vital information about how we are losing members, it gives us a starting point from which to engage in conversations about how Christian formation can better occur in the life of the church. And then maybe those folks who are drifting away will see reasons to stay and grow in their faith.
For instance, 28% of adults indicate that they have left the religious tradition of their childhood. But because the Pew Forum is dealing with broad categories ("Catholic," "Protestant," "Muslim"), that number is a little misleading. When shifts between Protestant denominations are taken into account, the number jumps way up to 44%. The number of those who do not identify with a religious tradition at all is 12%, and the number of those calling themselves either atheist or agnostic is 4%.
The Pew Forum study also looks at net winners and net losers in all this shifting around. The United Methodist Church, it turns out, is a net loser. 8.3% of adults said they were raised Methodist, whereas only 6.2% identify as Methodists now (which includes both the UMC and other Methodist denominations). That comes out to a net loss of 2.1%.
So what do these numbers mean? Essentially, it means that more people leave Methodist churches than stay or transfer in. In my mind, that's an issue of formation. Our people are not formed in such a way that they see their membership in the church as fundamental to their identity. So they leave.
Robin Russell has a good analysis of the Pew Forum study in the current edition of the United Methodist Reporter. My column in the upcoming issue will offer my own take on the study, and I'll link to it when it appears.
Like so many of the statistics you see about church membership these days, there is a level of frustration at what is happening to the church. But I can see some real positives as well. For instance, the 16% of the American population that is either unaffiliated, agnostic, or atheist, represents about 48 million potential Christians! For those who are called to evangelism ministries, you have your target population!
Also, if we know some vital information about how we are losing members, it gives us a starting point from which to engage in conversations about how Christian formation can better occur in the life of the church. And then maybe those folks who are drifting away will see reasons to stay and grow in their faith.
posted by Andrew C. Thompson at 11:31 AM
9 Comments:
Andrew, how broadly do they interpret "Methodist?"
Good question. I alluded to that in my third paragraph, but I should have emphasized it more strongly. I believe by "Methodist" the Pew Forum study refers to all denominations that self-identify as Methodist churches - such as the UMC, AME, AMEZ, CME, Free Methodists, Southern Methodists, etc.
I don't this for sure, but I don't think the study would consider Nazarenes, Salvation Army members, and others who are descended from Methodism to be considered Methodists now.
The entire study is downloadable as a pdf file from the Pew Forum's website. It's over 100 pages, and the only part I read was the section on shifts in membership. But there's a lot more there, and it all looks like it would be fascinating reading.
I'm not sure this necessarily a bad thing. Being a "net loser" could mean that the Methodist Church does a really good job of teaching young people that being Christian is more than a denominational affiliation. Or maybe it means that the they've taught their members to think critically and seriously about their faith, and so then when the UMC does something they don't think is consistent with their understanding of scripture, they leave. Those both could be signs of a Church that does a really good job with spiritual formation. Surely people can leave the UMC and still grow in their faith, right? I would be a little suspicious of any denomination that teaches otherwise...
Andrew, et al., I'd encourage you all to check out some recent blog posts over at Out of Ur. The most recent addresses this trend of like Jesus (supposedly) but hating the Church (i.e. instutionalized religion).
They also had an interesting discussion recently about a book called "Pagan Christianity," coauthored by George Barna and a house church guy. Basically, everything after the apostles died is a pagan corruption of the Church, especially the pastorate. Sadly, I think the arguments have found a ripe home in many evangelical quarters.
This goes along with your comments in the 3/7 issue of UMR where your "put down" happy christians. You fail to recognize that Jesus did nothing but build people up and not put them down, I for am sick of the "rules" and put downs of the denominational churches and have left. By the way Joel Osteen makes me feel good about being a "follower of Jesus" the UMC does not, that's why I left.
h.l., I ask this not to be inflammatory but because I'm generally curious.
What does Joel Osteen teach and preach about following Jesus? What does Jesus preach and teach about following Jesus? Are the two answers the same?
A good pastor friend of mine told me not long ago that I am the youngest curmudgeon he's ever met. Okay, okay, I know I can be critical at times, particularly of contemporary church life. But I think it is important to offer critiques where critiques are needed. The judgment of the church at Laodicea in Revelation 3 could easily be leveled at practically any church in the U.S. A defense of "Happy Christians" can easily become a defense of Christians who want to go on living as they're living, regardless of whether or not their lives conform to the life of discipleship called for in the New Testament, and who frankly don't want to be bothered.
Along those lines, I would take issue with H.L Darling's suggestion that "Jesus did nothing but build people up and not put them down." Jesus' first proclamation of the gospel was a call to repentance (Mark 1:15). His preaching of the beatitudes in Luke was mixed with a series of "woes", he offered plenty of condemnations of the scribes and Pharisees, he sent the rich young man away wringing his hands, he told those who didn't want to answer his call immediately to "let the dead bury their own dead," and he told Judas it would have been better if he had never been born. Not vintage Osteen, I'll grant you. But his preaching was a preaching of the truth. And that's what mattered then, just as it is what matters now.
This is all not to say that the gospel does not bring a deep and abiding sense of joy. Of course it does! The real notion of happiness, which is deep fulfillment, can only come about through conformity to the life of God in Christ. As Augustine said in the opening to the Confessions, "Our hearts are restless until they rest in thee." But that is a much different thing than the sugary, superficial presentation of a prosperity gospel that teaches you that Jesus wants to bless you with material blessings galore because, gee, you're just that special a person.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer tells us in The Cost of Discipleship, "When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die." Until we understand how that is actually good news, we will never grasp the heart of the gospel.
Well, Andrew, you pretty much responded the way I would have. I've watched and read enough of Osteen, who is a fantastic communicator and has no doubt made some tremendous and positive influence in the world, to know that the gospel is missing. Self-help has its place, but not in place of the Living Word who called us to take up our cross and follow him.
If your judgment makes you a curmudgeon, then I guess I need a name tag and membership card as well.
I don't know where "self help" exits in your world but "pick up your mat and walk" is very powerful in my world. The Sermon on the Mount is the most powerful and uplifting message any one could have preached. When you are talking to the "have nots" it is vital that they see something to live for. Jesus said to them that when I get to Jerusalem I will tell them (the haves) how that they are really out of it and you saw their response, they killed him.
I am not a big fan of Augustine and I view his works as only church supporting and I believe as John Crossan said of Paul and the second comming, Paul missed this one and we need to just get over it.
When you quote Bonhoffer you better be sure you know what "die" means. It not only means physical death.
I never read any place where Jesus said the apostles creed or where he said we should meet every Sunday and perform rituals for an hour.
I would suggest that before we can do the work of Jesus (his apprentice) that we need to feel good about who we are following and our future with him. Is it a real career or is it following a dream to get some mystical reward?
Post a Comment
<< Home