Great Lakes Presbytery adopts Ohio Overture on byFaith Magazine

At its stated spring meeting held today (April 30, 2011) Great Lakes Presbytery voted to adopt Overture 7 put forth by Ohio Presbytery without dissent.  The overture seeks to separate byFaith magazine from the Administrative Committee budget.  The stated clerk of the presbytery was directed to send this communication immediately to Atlanta with the caveat that the overture be sent to the Overtures Committee of the General Assembly. 

This makes three a total of three presbyteries who have gone on record concurring with this overture (Illiana Presbytery also adopted this overture).  A fourth presbytery, South Coast, has adopted similar language as it proposed an alternative funding plan for the Administrative Committee.  NOTE: most of the churches in the Ohio Presbytery were formerly part of Great Lakes Presbytery until they were formally divided in 2010. 

The rationale behind the overture is fairly simple.  The Administrative Committee has been running short of funds the last few years.  Upon further review the amount of the shortfall is approximately the operating budget of byFaith.  The overture addresses this budgetary question by simply severing ties with byFaith and allowing it to stand (or fall) on its own.  Though some may complain that this is harsh I respond by noting that this is not nearly as radical as amending our denomination's constitution to impose a tax/fee system upon all churches and ministers. 

In these tough economic times all churches are cutting expenses and doing what they can to balance their budgets.  This vote affirms that the same line of reasoning ought to be applied to the AC and byFaith. 

byFaith Magazine - The PCA Public Affairs Office Announces New Funding Plan is in the Works

Wow. It is amazing how fast our denomination's magazine, ahem, public affairs office, can put out a statement for public consumption when it concerns something that it wants to promote.  It only took months for this office to note dissenting votes when BCO 14 amendments were being defeated by a 2:1 margin last fall.  More recently it took the better part of a week for it to acknowledge that those some amendments had been soundly defeated by more than 1/3 of our presbyteries. 

Now comes this headline: byFaith Magazine - PCA News - CMC to Propose Alternative AC Funding Plan: New Plan Being Readied for 2012 Assembly

So, barely a week after its sound repudiation over the BCO Chapter 14 amendments the Cooperative Ministries Committee is back at it drafting something for the 2012 General Assembly. The unnamed writer breathlessly assures us that the Cooperative Ministries Committee will come up with something that is "equitable and constitutional."  Whew, I'm relieved. 

Question: Has anyone on this committee actually sat down and considered the level of distrust that they have created across the denomination?

Expect a huge PR campaign to accompany this new plan. 

Update: Always Reformed & Courageous Calvinism, II

UPDATE 1/27/11: Based on my post some have inferred that I, along with Dr. Godfrey, advocate a narrow-minded view of reformed theology.  That was not my intent nor was it part of Dr. Godfrey's original address.  Below I have added some more words from his address that dispel that notion.  They are bold and italicized.  As I have repeatedly said, read the book.
__________________________
I would like to follow up my earlier post with some additional comments on Robert Godfrey's essay, "Courageous Calvinism for a New Century".  This essay is the actual text from his inaugural address upon assuming the presidency of Westminster Seminary in California in 1993.  His message revolved around four major points: Comprehensive Calvinism, Consistent Calvinism, Christocentric Calvinism, and Committed Calvinism.  Though his message charted the direction he wanted WSC to go, the message serves as a good reminder for all churches in the reformed tradition.  Today I'd like to address the second of those points, Consistent Calvinism and its implications for my denomination, the Presbyterian Church in America.

What is Consistent Calvinism?  Godfrey explains:

We need a Calvinism that grows out of its own inherent genius, a Calvinism that shows a coherence in its life, ministry and message. We need Calvinism, therefore, that at every point and in every way seeks to ask how do we build organically on the insights into Scripture that our forbears have given us.  As Calvinists, we want to avoid a kind of eclecticism that goes through the religious world gathering tidbits here and there and in an artificial way tries to connect them to the Reformed heritage we have inherited...Now, in calling for a consistent Calvinism, we are not saying that there is nothing to learn from others.  We need to resist our all too present Reformed tendencies to be smug and self-satisfied.  We need to listen to brothers and sisters of other traditions.  We need to weigh what they would say to us.  We need clearly to recognize the reality of genuine Christianity in other traditions that can speak to us and can help us.  But if we are committed, as Westminster Seminary is, to the fact that historic confessional Calvinism is the fullest and most faithful form of Biblical teaching, then we must evaluate what we are hearing from other traditions by that root of faith from which we seek to grow and to be sure that we are being consistent Calvinists.  We need courage then, to be consistent Calvinists."

Here Godfrey warns about the danger of blindly adding beliefs, practices and insights from other traditions simply because they make sense, are appealing, or may work.  I don't think he was criticizing any person, church or movement as much as stating the obvious: the reformed tradition has been around for a long time.  Before we think it to be obsolete, outdated, or broken, we ought to examine it more closely.  This builds upon his earlier point of a Comprehensive Calvinism and the insight that our confessions provide a piety of Word and Sacrament, of Psalm and Sabbath but he means more than this too.  He specifially mentions that this reformed heritage ought to affect our "lives, our piety, our worship" along with evangelism, church-planting, and of our training of ministers. 

One need only visit a few PCA churches to find great diversity amongst them.  In any given presbytery you will find upbeat churches whose worship barely differs from many charismatic churches and just a few miles up the road you will find a traditional church that sings from a hymnal. Why the great divergence?  Just consider where our ministers have studied --  RTS Jackson, RTS Orlando, RTS Charlotte, Greenville, Westminster Philadelphia, Westminster California, Covenant Theological Seminary, Biblical Theological Seminary, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Dallas Theological Seminary, Gordon-Conwell and a score of lesser known institutions.  Each school has its strengths and weaknesses: each school has its own loyalties and distinctives.  Some are "old-school" Presbyterian while others are broadly evangelical.  Some study the giants in reformed theology; others prefer modern interpretations of reformed theology.  Added to this mix is the fact that the PCA is a member of the The National Association of Evangelicals. Prominent PCA leaders advocate involvement with The Gospel Coalition, The World Reformed Fellowship, and other broad organizations. 

It seems by design that our denomination is more eclectic than is healthy.  To try to implement an eclectic Strategic Plan is a curious proposition at best. 

Is there an easy way out of this mess?  I've not heard one.  For starters I think simply realizing that we are not in agreement would be a good thing.  Moreover, discussions at the presbytery level would be healthy.  For instance, a presbytery could decide what sort of churches it will plant and/or allow to join the denomination based upon a common agreement of what it means to be reformed.  That agreement could be forged by reading "Always Reformed" and applying its insights.  One would also do well to do some additional reading of those who contributed to this volume.  Additionally, folks would do well to slow down a bit and learn from history.  Today I finished listening to this fascinating interview on J. Gresham Machen and his legacy. 

For my part, I've read the book and given it to my elders as a Christmas present.  I'm also encouraging a wider audience, especially my fellow ministers in the PCA, to purchase the book and reflect on its insights. 

The PCA Strategic Plan - What If????

Since July our denomination has been in turmoil over the Strategic Plan it adopted at last summer's General Assembly.  Front and center were the proposed amendments to our Book of Church Order imposing a fee structure (tax) upon all ministers and congregations to fund the Administrative Committee.  Much has been written on this matter as it has been debated throughout the denomination. 

Last fall, when the amendments were being defeated by a 2 to 1 margin the Administrative Committee engaged in a 'full court press' to counter what it perceived to be misinformation.  By December the votes in favor of the amendments were running slightly ahead of those against.  Lost in this entire debate was something greater than merely funding the Administrative Committee -- negative votes might actually be a protest against the entire Strategic Plan.

A few days ago an 'unofficial' report began circulating that proposed amendments had failed when 1/3 of our presbyteries voted against them.  Earlier today this was confirmed  by our denomination's official publication. 

From my perspective this brings up an interesting question.  In our most recent statistics our denomination has 1442 churches and 298 mission churches for a grand total of 1740 churches.  By my count, somewhere around 600 churches or about 34% of the denomination's congregations were represented at last year's General Assembly, when the Strategic Plan was adopted.  As is well known many of the items were hotly contested and passed by slim margins including the proposed amendments.   

If only 34% of our churches voted on the Strategic Plan last summer and those votes were split by very close margins, then the presbytery votes on the BCO Chapter 14 amendments could be interpreted as a backlash against the entire Strategic Plan. 

At present this is an unprovable point, but I know that my vote against the BCO 14 amendments was my way of making known my displeasure with the entire Strategic Plan.  Perhaps others did the same.  In any event this a question that the Cooperative Ministries Committee ought to consider as it convenes tomorrow.  Perhaps in its attempt to fix what it perceives to be wrong with the denomination the Cooperative Ministries Committee has awakened a sleeping giant.

Ouch!!! The PCA more heavy-handed than the PCUSA? - UPDATE

Today the Layman Online is reporting that the PCUSA is writing off nearly $1,000,000 in uncollected per capita giving for 2009.  Embedded in this story is an astonishing statement:

"Further, the GAPJC has held that no punitive action can be taken at any level of governance against those who fail to pay per capita."

That is a far cry from what was proposed at the PCA General Assembly - failure to pay the annual fee would be cumulative, would result in loss of voting rights at General Assembly, and could result in losing the ability to serve on GA committees. 

If the PC-USA will not punish for failure to give then why is the PCA so quick to rule with a big stick? 

Go here for the full story: http://www.layman.org/News.aspx?article=27769
_____________________________________________________________

Last spring, from the moment I began reading the Strategic Plan for the PCA and watched the accompanying videos, I stood opposed to its adoption. Incumbent with that position is my steadfast opposition to amending our constitution to require churches, individual ministers and presbyteries pay an annual fee (tax) to the denomination's headquarters as represented by the Administrative Committee. I have written about funding the AC in an alternative manner and I have also argued that churches need to express their 'connectionalism' by voluntarily supporting this office.

The Aquila Report has posted an article that sheds light on the proposed amendments to our Book of Church Order. The opinions come from a surprising place - the more liberal (and top-down, command and control) Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA). In short, many in that denomination are looking on and cannot believe the heavy-handed approach proposed by our denomination's Cooperative Ministries Committee.  Quoting from the article...

“It would be a shame if your General Assembly were to adopt a policy more restrictive than the one currently in force in the PCUSA.”

“I can't imagine that the PCA wants to be viewed as MORE draconian than the PCUSA.”

We should not be surprised at this response. I have had private conversations with members of my own church who know little about PCA politics and they are appalled at these amendments.  I have had similar responses from folks representing sister NAPARC churches who cannot believe that this has been proposed.  

When this came to a vote on the floor of our presbytery in September the amendments were soundly defeated by a 9 to 1 margin.  Our debate was anything but heated.  A few days earlier I had come down with a cold and I barely had a voice.  Thus, though I was adamantly opposed to the amendments I could barely speak without coughing.  Man after man stood up and spoke in favor of our current voluntary plan and expressed great consternation about the perceived centralization of power in Atlanta as expressed through the Cooperative Ministries Committee.  Some even went so far as to say that they had left denominations for this very reason and came into the PCA for its 'freedom' and 'liberty.'

Remember, the PC-USA will not allow congregations to leave that denomination with their buildings (talk about 'restrictive' and 'draconian').  Churches who wish to leave that denomination must pay an 'exit fee' (usually running into hundreds of thousands of dollars or more) to retain ownership of their buildings.  That those folks view the PCA as being more restrictive and draconian than them speaks volumes.

The Aquila Report: PCA Proposed AC Funding Changes more restrictive than current PCUSA Policy, official explains

An Alternative to the Proposed AC Funding Plan

It is no secret that, in the world of non-profit organizations, administration is often neglected and chronically under-funded. Some are puzzled by this and others, particularly those who are involved in administration, become discouraged. Those charged with administrative tasks correctly see that any organization must run well or else it will trip over itself along the way. They cannot understand why others don’t see the vital importance of what they do. This is the situation that faces the Administrative Committee of our denomination.

One need only look at the chart supplied by the Administrative Committee to see that their responsibilities are broader than most can conceive (note: I am referring to the organizational chart found in the AC’s brochure entitled, “We Connect PCA People, Churches and Ministries” available at this link: http://www.pcaac.org/AC%20Partnership.htm ). A cursory glance reveals that this office does more than plan the General Assembly or field parliamentary questions about the Book of Church Order. This office does the administrative work for the Standing Judicial Commission. It organizes the work for Review of Presbytery Minutes. It is charged with recording the history of our denomination. It serves our denominational committees and agencies (CEP, CC, CTS, MNA, MTW, PCAF, RUM, RBI, RH). It communicates with all 77 presbyteries and provides services to all of our 1,740 churches. Externally this office represents our denomination at NAPARC, the NAE, and the World Reformed Fellowship Board.

Only after one sees the scope of their responsibilities and the corresponding lack of financial support can we get grasp their frustration. Thus the proposed ‘tax’ on churches and ministers seems to be the only way out of this dilemma. Though this plan may be well-intentioned I believe that it fails to address the root cause of their chronic under-funding.

A Potential Alternative

I suggest an alternative funding model for the Administrative Committee that consists of three parts. First, separate byFaith Magazine from the AC budget and fund it through different sources. Second, require the committees and agencies of the General Assembly give to the AC a small percentage of what they receive. Third, keep the current voluntary askings that are in place.

Part 1: Fund byFaith Magazine by separate sources

If we are going to make sure that the AC is properly funded then its budget must be confined to those matters that have to do specifically with administering the work of the General Assembly and its ministries. byFaith Magazine is not necessary to the administration of the denomination.

This does not mean that we should eliminate byFaith. We should simply fund it through other sources. These would include subscriptions, advertising, and private donations. The result is that around $400,000 would be taken from the proposed budget under the AC’s proposed funding plan. This would reduce the proposed 2011 budget from $2,250,000 to $1,800,000.

Part 2: Contributions of GA Committees and Agencies to the AC

Much of the AC’s under-funding problem can be traced to old-fashioned American pragmatism. We are prone to support things that give us the most “bang for our buck.” Thus, it is much easier to raise money for evangelism, church planting, mercy-ministry, reaching unreached peoples, or even putting up a building because there are tangible, quantifiable results that can be measured. Those who have contributed money to such things thrive upon the stories about lives that have been touched. They see the photos, hear the accounts, and they give thanks to God for being able to have a part in this project. Such things can never be done with administration. Balanced budgets, organizational oversight, efficiency in the use of resources do not pull at the heart-strings of potential donors. They know that such things are important but they would prefer to give their money to people, organizations and projects that have tangible, measurable results.

How have non-profit organizations gotten around this dilemma? They take a piece of each dollar that is raised to fund administrative overhead. The second part of the plan is that all GA committees and agencies would give a small portion (up to 1%) of what they receive to the AC. This makes perfect sense since the denominational agencies and committees receive services and oversight from the Administrative Committee.

This is a point that the AC has made to the General Assembly before, but it appears that it has never been seriously pursued. The AC noted as late as 2009, “One of the unique features of the PCA is that funding of support services (AC/SC) is a separate funding request to churches. We do not know of any other denomination that operates that way” (p. 332 Minutes of the 37th General Assembly). I believe that this proposal will help place the AC on better footing.

Why do I make this suggestion? As it stands right now we have MTW missionaries, MNA church planters, RUM ministers all knocking on the doors of PCA congregations for support. These individuals raise tens of millions of dollars from our churches. Why can’t 1% of those donations be funneled to the Administrative Committee?

Additionally, denominational agencies with development (i.e. fund-raising) offices travel the country soliciting funds largely from PCA churches and individuals. A percentage of these funds ought to be given to the AC as well. This would include capital projects, like Covenant College’s recently completed campaign which netted $55,000,000.

For those who object that up to 1% is too steep please consider Campus Crusade for Christ which has over 25,000 staff in more than 190 countries. That organization funds its worldwide administrative needs with a 5% surcharge on every dollar raised by a staff member or raised for special projects. Most non-profits take anywhere from 7-15% off the top.  What I am proposing is miniscule by comparison and would provide upwards of $1,000,000 annually to the AC.

Part 3: Retain the Current Church Askings Program.

By its own account, the AC receives money from a higher percentage of churches than any other committee or agencies (p. 332 Minutes of 37th General Assembly). In fact, contributions to the AC have averaged nearly $1,000,000/ year for the last five years (See p. 406 of 2010 General Assembly Commissioner’s Handbook, line 1 Support and Revenue).

A closer look at the 2009 statistics reveals that only 470 churches out of 1,740 (26%) gave to the AC. That is an appallingly low number. As Presbyterians we pride ourselves in one of the distinctive features of our form of church government: ‘connectionalism’. We all have a sense of what this means but for the sake of clarity let’s define it. Here is Dr. L. Roy Taylor in his own words:

“I define a connectional Church as follows: “By connectional‟ we mean that local churches see themselves as part of the larger Church, that local churches are not independent but are accountable to the larger Church, and that local churches do not minister alone but in cooperation with the larger Church.” ( L. Roy Taylor, “Presbyterianism” in Who Runs the Church: Four Views on Church Government (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Company, 2004, p. 75).

It is my strong conviction that one of the best demonstrations of our ‘connectionalism’ is shown by contributing to the Administrative Committee.

Though the current percentage of churches currently contributing to the AC is relatively low I believe that this could be rectified by simply publishing the names of those churches who fail to support the AC. With a little sunlight shone it is entirely reasonable to expect that giving via the church askings would increase.

Conclusion

Our current practice of forcing the AC to ‘compete’ with other denomination agencies and committees for funds is ludicrous. So is amending our Book of Church Order to force churches and ministers to pay an annual fee. We should keep the current voluntary practice of askings and follow the examples of other denominations and non-profit organizations and the way they fund their administrative offices.

Congregations Gone Wild - New York Times

One of the members of my church forwarded a short and important article published in the New York Times over the weekend.  The article concisely explains why ministers are burning out - they are trying to please the ever changing tastes and desires of their congregations.  He writes,

The pastoral vocation is to help people grow spiritually, resist their lowest impulses and adopt higher, more compassionate ways. But churchgoers increasingly want pastors to soothe and entertain them. It’s apparent in the theater-style seating and giant projection screens in churches and in mission trips that involve more sightseeing than listening to the local people.


As a result, pastors are constantly forced to choose, as they work through congregants’ daily wish lists in their e-mail and voice mail, between paths of personal integrity and those that portend greater job security. As religion becomes a consumer experience, the clergy become more unhappy and unhealthy.

I think that this is something often overlooked by most of the people in the pews.  Church has become a consumer experience for most Americans.  They 'shop' around to find the best deal for music, programs, teaching and facilities paying little attention to doctrine or denomination.  Sadly, we have seen it in our own community when people with a PCA background move to town and choose to worship somewhere else because 'we aren't the flavor of PCA that they prefer.'  Now, no one comes out and actually says this, but it it is pretty obvious that after a few questions you learn that they are choosing a church home for something other than reformed theology.

This article has bearing on what occurred at my denomination's recent General Assembly in Nashville.  By day we debated the Strategic Plan and whether or not the denomination needed a major overhaul (those backing the plan argued that we are losing young people and the plan must be implemented).  By night the worship services featured innovative formats that pushed the envelope on what constitutes faithful worship.  To me it became apparent that those backing the Strategic Plan planned those services as a means to lobby for their point of view.  This was most clear on Wednesday evening when Dr. Bryan Chapell served as worship leader with Indelible Grace handling the worship music.  I do not wish to debate the merits of their music.  I only mention them because the implicit message of that evening was this: young people like this form of worship.  If we are going to attract and keep them we have to give them what they want.  This supports the thesis of the NT Times article - give people what they want or else they will walk. 

I'm saddened that many in my denomination have surrendered to consumerism.  I saw this play out when the Baby Boomers came of age and it happened when Gen-X arrived on the scene.  Now it is happening with the children of the Boomers.  This surrender reminds me of the book, "No Place for Truth".  Is this where we are heading as a denomination? 

You can read the NT Times piece here:  Congregations Gone Wild - NYTimes.com

PCA Strategic Plan - Another Chart, Another Misinterpretation

When I first learned about the Strategic Plan as presented at our May presbytery meeting, something immediately caught my eye.  What was presented there was a summary of the entire plan and I am not sure if it originated in the Stated Clerk's Office. 

However, on page 349 of the Commissioner's Handbook there is a chart detailing the proposed Annual Registration Fee for Churches.  The chart is too large and complex to reproduce here.  Of note are the last two lines of data (this is what originally caught my eye):

Tithes and Offering Range                                     # of Churches
$50,000 - $99,000                                                            241
$0 - $49,999                                                                     544

As represented, the Stated Clerk's Office and the Cooperative Ministries Committee are stating that 785 out of our 1,740 churches and missions (45%) receive less than $100,000/year in tithes and offerings.  Brothers and sisters, THAT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

For instance, Covenant Presbyterian Church in Chicago Metro Presbytery reported 358 members in the year 2009 and $0.00 for offerings and income.  Consider Orangewood PCA in Maitland, Florida.  In 2009 they reported 1,194 members and $0.00 for income.  These churches were selected randomly just by leafing through the current PCA yearbook.  I do not know the pastors nor do I know anything about the churches.  But according to the Annual Registration Fee for Churches these congregations fall into the bottom category of the chart and would thus qualify for the minimum annual fee of $100.   Similarly, established churches that have never reported any statistics like Walnut Creek PCA in Gahanna, Ohio (that has multiple staff and in recent years has purchased land and erected a new building) would pay the same minimal registration fee.  Can you say, "Sweetheart Deal"?

When I spoke to this issue on the floor of GA I did not mention any churches by name.  I simply pointed out that by my statistical analysis there is no way that this chart is accurate given that only 44.5% of our churches reported any statistical data in 2008 and 48% submitted statistics in 2009.  I also stated that imposing such a 'tax' upon churches would create a disincentive to report any statistics and might encourage churches to shade the truth when reporting their figures. 

PCA Business manager John Robertson spoke to this issue and accused me (and others) of spreading misinformation.  He stood by the chart and the funding plan.  He also stood by the overall PCA statistics and offered that going forward the Stated Clerk's office might only collect 'minimal statistics' (not defined).  Furthermore he indicated that plans were in the works to force/compel/make churches report their annual statistics. 

I don't know about you but two things stick out to me:

1) Mr. Robertson sounds like the Wizard of Oz when he accuses me and others of spreading misinformation.  His comments are akin to the Wizard saying to Dorothy, "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." 

2) Any talk of 'force/compel/make' doesn't sit well with me.  It is a veiled threat but it also shows us where the Cooperative Ministries Committee is heading -- a centralized power structure that imposes its will upon the denomination. 

Previous General Assemblies created and nurtured this monster known as the Cooperative Ministries Committee.  Now the beast demands to be fed (annual registration fees (taxes) for churches and ministers) and threatens force and coercion to get its way.  Fellow presbyters, you can keep this beast reigned in by voting down the Book of Church Order Amendments to chapter 14 concerning 'the requirement' to support the denomination via the Administrative Committee.  I'm all in favor of the AC but would much prefer the voluntary funding that is currently practiced.

PCA Strategic Plan - A Tale of Two Charts

Last week the General Assembly passed most of the Strategic Plan as proposed by the Cooperative Ministries Committee (here).  Some of the elements were modified by the Committee of Commissioners on Administration but for the most part the entire thing passed. 

Leading up the floor debate was a question and answer seminar led by Dr. Bryan Chapell and others on the Cooperative Ministries Committee.  I was not able to attend as my committee (Overtures) was called off the floor of the assembly for its own business and when we were finished I was too tired for another meeting. 

Apparently the meeting was a re-hash of the video presentation available at the previous link. The case was made rather strenuously that the PCA is losing its young people. Anecdotal evidence was given along with a chart showing that the number of men preparing for ministry dropped rather precipitously from 599 candidates in 2004 to just 297 in 2008.   Furthermore the case for this drop had to do with 'doctrinal debates' in our denomination that left young men disinterested in studying for the ministry.  Below is a chart showing that drop (double click to enlarge).
Seems like a compelling case that something must be done (i.e. enact the Strategic Plan). However, what's very curious is that the most recent data from calendar year 2009 was available (at the CE&P bookstore) but not used.  If you look at the chart below you will see a remarkable recovery in the numbers of ministerial candidates from 2008 to 2009 (double click to enlarge). 

I cannot explain why the most recent numbers were not used. Perhaps Dr. Chapell did not have time to update his presentation before this meeting. But surely someone (Dr. Taylor???) knew that the figures from 2004 - 2008 didn't tell the whole story.

What might account for this downward trend and subsequent 'recovery'? It is possible that there might have been a legitimate decline in ministerial candidates since 2004 with a significant gain from 2008 to 2009. But another solution is also possible: What if in 2004 and again in 2009 relatively high numbers of presbyteries reported data while in the years 2005 - 2008 less than 50% of presbyteries submitted data? That would just as easily explain the decline as well as the recovery. My point is this: numbers can be used and abused.

I strongly suspect that the number of presbyteries submitting annual data on candidates and licentiates is similar to my findings about the number of churches that are submitting annual data (43.5 % in 2008 and 48% in 2009). Thus, we should take talk about 'trends' with a lot of salt.

I wish that our denomination's Stated Clerk would make public the PCA statistics in a 'Read Only' electronic format so that statistics could be independently analyzed.  We have a host of people in the PCA with expertise in the realm of statistics that could 'mine' the raw data and factor in margins of error.  Until such time I would caution everyone NOT to believe everything they hear about denominational growth or shrinkage. 

Stay tuned for another post on numbers.

PCA Strategic Plan, III (48% is better than 44.5% but...)

A few days ago I published a post on the PCA and its statistics, available here.  Since that time others have created their own posts and the best one is here.  I'd like to expand on both of those for a moment. 

In the realm of business and commerce one is confronted by a myriad of problems that affect the bottom line but also customer service (not to mention morale of one's own employees).  Years ago a methodology was created at General Electric to identify and eliminate defects leading to long-term improvement and performance.  The methodology is called Six Sigma (here for more information) and it is in use in Fortune 50 and Fortune 500 companies as well as multitudes of other corporations and organizations. 

There are five steps in this methodology that can be remembered by this term: DMAIC.

Define - Define your customer's needs, the process that needs to be improved, the desired outcome, beginning and ending of implementation.

Measure - Data is collected.  Defects are identified.  Key metrics are established.

Analyze - The data is analyzed to determine root causes of defects and opportunities for improvement.

Improve - An implementation plan is developed and deployed to eliminate defects and fulfill desired metrics.

Control - A control plan must be established to prevent reverting back to 'old way' of doing doing things.  This is also known as institutional improvement. 

Having been trained in Six Sigma and involved in a number of projects during my time in a Fortune 50 corporation I can assert that the easiest mistake in this process is go light on the data collection and analysis so that one can immediately take action in the Improvement phase.  Yet, if one hasn't collected the right data or if one doesn't adequately analyze that data, their efforts will not achieve the desired outcome. 

I bring all this up to assert that as I read the PCA Strategic Plan, I think that our Cooperative Ministry Committee has jumped ahead in the process from accurately diagnosing what is needed in our denomination to prescribing a solution that might not fix anything and even make things worse. 

Below is a chart that I created based on the most recent data available from the PCA headquarters.  It is a simple chart showing that for the year ending 2009 only 48% (834 out of 1738) of our churches and mission churches submitted statistical data.  Worse, 30% of our churches (526 out of 1738) have not submitted any data in the last five years.  Double-click on the chart to see a bigger version.

In my original post I noted that about 44.5% of our churches submitted statistical data in 2008.  This year we are up 3.5% which is good news.  Our stated clerk, in his annual report noted that we 'gained' 5,556 members last year (2009).  I wonder how many we would 'gain' if 100% of our churches would submit current statistics? 

All of this leads me to be more than a tad skeptical about a strategic plan that is predicated on an S curve showing that the PCA has plateaued.  Our best data is only reflective of 48% of our churches.  All the talk about 'new seats at the table', 'safe places', and 'gospel ecosystems' falls into the error noted above when leaders jump from Measure and Analyze to Improve.

I am of the opinion that proponents of the Strategic Plan will try to dismiss my analysis and the analysis noted above. They will assert that the trends facing the PCA and the white, western, Anglo church are irrefutable.  However, if they take that approach they run the risk of appearing like Archie Bunker: "Don't confuse me with the facts."  Tomorrow promises to be an interesting day.

PCA Strategic Plan, II

It was once said, "There are lies, there are damned lies, and there are statistics."  The point is obvious: statistical data can be twisted and manipulated to prove just about anything.  Last year the stated clerk of the PCA reported that for the first time in our history, the PCA lost more members than it gained.  During the last year the Cooperative Ministries Committee has used that data point to craft their strategic plan that they believe will return the PCA to a steady rate of growth.

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.