A summary of the strategic plan was presented at our most recent meeting of presbytery. Some of the numbers presented looked suspicious to me. Last week on my day off, I spent some time with our clerk of presbytery and borrowed his copy of the 2008 statistics of the PCA. While researching one question I stumbled across something else that leads me to make this assertion: The most recent data published on the PCA is not worth the paper it is printed on. Furthermore, I challenge the premise that the PCA shrank last year for the first time in its history. And if it cannot be proven that the PCA is shrinking one wonders if any sort of strategic plan is needed.
Why would I challenge that premise? What did I discover when I reviewed the 2008 PCA statistics? I found that less than 45% of all PCA churches and missions submitted statistical reports for the year ending in 2008. Put differently, nearly 60% of PCA churches did not not submit current data for that same time period. The Stated Clerk's office, following protocol, simply lists the last data reported (see the qualifier on the last page of the published statistics). NOTE: I am not alleging that anyone has twisted the PCA statistics as much as they have not interpreted them accurately.
How outdated are the numbers? There are a number of churches who have not reported data for one or two years. However, one would be surprised to see how many churches have not submitted data since calendar year 2000, or 1997, or 1991, or 1987. There is even one church that has not submitted updated information since 1977. Unfortunately there are congregations with multiple pastors in brand new buildings that have never submitted statistics. Similarly, there are mission works that have particularized who have not updated their data since their inception.
Below is a chart that I created to show each presbytery and the percentage of churches and missions that submitted data in 2008. Each presbytery is listed in the left column. The next column is the number of churches and missions in that presbytery. The third column is the number of churches that submitted data for calendar year 2008. Finally there is a column revealing the percentage of churches in that presbytery who supplied current statistics. At the bottom is a summary of the data. Note: I created this file in Excel and imported it here. I wrestled with the formatting for quite some time and still can't get the columns straight.
Presbytery # Churches # Church / Missions % Reporting
/ Missions that reported data
in 2008
Ascension 19 11 57.89%
Blue Ridge 16 9 56.25%
Calvary 44 19 43.18%
Central Carolina 37 23 62.16%
Central Florida 31 10 32.26%
Central Georgia 17 13 76.47%
Chesapeake 31 21 67.74%
Chicago Metro 14 6 42.86%
Covenant 51 23 45.10%
Eastern Canada 10 3 30.00%
Eastern Carolina 23 11 47.83%
Evangel 39 20 51.28%
Fellowship 15 12 80.00%
Georgia Foothills 16 10 62.50%
Grace 40 11 27.50%
Great Lakes 24 16 66.67%
Gulf Coast 27 13 48.15%
Gulfstream 11 5 45.45%
Heartland 9 3 33.33%
Heritage 19 11 57.89%
Houston Metro 16 8 50.00%
Illiana 12 3 25.00%
Iowa 11 9 81.82%
James River 30 18 60.00%
Korean Capital 25 1 4.00%
Korean Central 24 2 8.33%
Korean Eastern 29 1 3.45%
Korean Northwest 19 0 0.00%
Korean Southeast 32 3 9.38%
Korean Southern 18 0 0.00%
Korean Southwest 28 1 3.57%
Louisiana 8 1 12.50%
Metro Atlanta 35 15 42.86%
Metro New York 36 7 19.44%
Mississippi Valley 48 20 41.67%
Missouri 24 11 45.83%
Nashville 19 6 31.58%New Jersey 13 8 61.54%
New River 12 4 33.33%
New York State 12 8 66.67%
North Florida 16 11 68.75%
North Texas 38 10 26.32%
Northern Calif. 24 14 58.33%
Northern Illinois 8 6 75.00%
New England 10 8 80.00%
Northwest Georgia 16 7 43.75%
Ohio Valley 24 15 62.50%
Pacific 17 4 23.53%
Pacific Northwest 25 15 60.00%
Palmetto 45 24 53.33%
Philadelphia 19 5 26.32%
Phil. Metro West 11 5 45.45%
Piedmont Triad 12 4 33.33%
Pittsburgh 21 12 57.14%
Platte Valley 9 5 55.56%
Potomac 31 27 87.10%
Rocky Mountain 27 10 37.04%
Savannah River 23 11 47.83%
Siouxlands 15 7 46.67%
South Coast 25 7 28.00%
South Florida 24 8 33.33%
South Texas 19 13 68.42%
Southeast Alabama 32 12 37.50%
Southeast Louisiana 10 6 60.00%
Southern New England 20 6 30.00%
Southwest Presbytery 25 12 48.00%
Southwest Florida 28 13 46.43%
Suncoast Florida 11 4 36.36%
Susquehanna 20 17 85.00%
Tennessee Valley 33 19 57.58%
Warrior 24 10 41.67%
Western Canada 11 5 45.45%
Western Carolina 32 15 46.88%
Westminster 24 18 75.00%
Wisconsin 6 4 66.67%
Totals 1679 745 44.37% (745/1679)
Thus, for the year ending 2008 barely 40% of our churches reported statistical data. Is this enough information to overhaul our denomination? Hardly. The fact of the matter is this: no one knows whether the PCA is shrinking, staying the same or actually growing.
Think of it this way: Do you know of any political candidate who concedes an election based on 44% of the vote being tabulated? Do you know of any CEO who seeks to restructure his corporation based on an annual report with only 44% of his business units reporting their activity for the fiscal year? Do you know of a cancer patient who is happy his doctor tells him that he is 44% certain that the cancer is in remission? Do you know of any heart patient who agrees to open-heart surgery based on the cardiologist's 40% certainty that he needs a quadruple by-pass? Yet, The Cooperative Ministries Committee is proposing this very thing. My assertion is this: the Cooperative Ministries Committee has neither correctly diagnosed what is wrong in the PCA nor have they prescribed the correct cure (indeed, the 'cure' is probably worse than the illness).
When we view the data from this perspective it is easy to see that the "S" Graph featured so prominently in the Strategic Plan videos is suspect (kind of reminds me of a certain graph in the shape of a hockey stick that is now being questioned in many quarters, but I digress).
Until we get more complete data on the state of the PCA the calls for its demise are premature. Seems to me that we need a task force to ascertain why connectionalism seems to running at such a low ebb in the PCA.
7 comments:
Dave,
I think this is one of the best posts I've seen on the strategic plan. Very good work. Wes
Thank you!
This is the kind of data analysis that properly informs any planning process. Thanks for doing the hard digging. Decisions need to be based on facts, not anecdotal evidence.
Dave, did you notice that we had a net gain of 5,556 last year? I was kind of surprised based on all that I have heard.
Dave,
Thanks for taking the time to assemble this. Three comments:
1) From your analysis, does it appear that the churches who do not turn in their stat forms are the ones least likely to be growing anyway, i.e. small rural churches on a possible downturn? Or is there no real way to tell?
2) Here is an idea: instead of predicating a church's vote at GA on their giving to the AC, how about requiring that they turn in their stats before given a vote? If that is not seriously considered, then it would help affirm my suspicions that the whole SP thing is about money for the AC.
3) More concerning to me in the analysis Martin did is the fact that our membership is now way higher than our attendance. To me, a sign of a healthy growing church is one where the attendance is somewhat higher than the membership because it attracting inquirers; and on the other side, it means the church is practicing discipline on non-attenders. This should be our real concern.
Chris Hutchinson
Blacksburg, VA
Chris,
Just got in last night from a few days away. Drove 800 miles yesterday so I apologize for being a bit fried.
1) Churches that don't file statistics - it is hard to find a pattern. Yes it is true that small, rural churches are stable and don't change much from year to year. So they might not always file annual reports. Additionally, those works often lack administrative help. But you would be surprised at the number of suburban works that do not file statistics. So, I cannot detect a pattern.
2) Linking GA voting to filing statistics - great idea. I don't know if it would fly. That said, the CMC proposal to 'tax' churches based on their size would lead to LESS churches filing annual statistics.
3) Membership higher than attendance. I agree that it would be better to have those figures reversed. I attribute Martin's findings that membership exceeds attendance to lazy Sessions who are not maintaining their membership rolls very well.
One other note: Martin's analysis is very helpful. However, I suspect that it is subject to the same flaw I noted in this blog post. If, only 44% of our churches are in the habit of filing annual statistics then can any year's data be all that solid?
Chris,
One other comment about #1. I thought that I'd see a pattern of reporting statistics based on the temperament of each presbytery.
For instance, I initially expected to find confessional presbyteries like Ascension with higher levels of compliance than broadly evangelical presbyteries like Northern California. However, both came in at the same level of compliance (about 58%).
Dave,
Thanks for the replies. My apologies also on a late reply. All that makes sense. I will say that one group of presbyteries does stand out by their low compliance, of course, and that is the Korean presbyteries. They are not really part of the PCA, and the plan to integrate them has not worked out well so far.
But then, I think we may have brought our presbytery's stats down this year by being late! Oops!
Post a Comment