The latest (and final, at least for a while) UM & Global collection is now available. This collection examines the distribution of Methodism around the world Methodist membership data, or in other words, Methodist maps and membership.
The collection is broken into three sections: one on maps of global Methodism, one on global membership data for The United Methodist Church and other Methodist denominations, and one on membership decline in The United Methodist Church in the United States.
Along with the text of the posts, this collection includes images of many maps and several tables worth of data. Thus, this collection can serve as a Methodist gazetteer and reference point in addition to the value of the interpretive essays.
The posts are predominantly authored by David W. Scott, with a couple of response posts from Robert Harman and William Payne included. As with other collections, there is a set of discussion questions at the end of the volume.
Dedicated to fostering conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church
Showing posts with label data. Show all posts
Showing posts with label data. Show all posts
Monday, January 25, 2021
Friday, January 22, 2021
Clergy vs. Laity Membership Numbers
Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.
Following up on comments that Bob Harman has made on previous blogs, I constructed a table of lay membership and clergy numbers by annual conference for the last three quadrennium. Per Bob’s suggestion, this was an attempt to get a different perspective on the rates of growth and decline in the church in various countries.
The full data set is linked above for those who are interested. Rather than try to put that table into this blog (which is a formatting nightmare), I will instead share three reflections on what I have seen in the data as I have reviewed it.
Clergy Membership Data Is Not Necessarily More Reliable that Lay Membership Data
Membership data has a number of notorious problems: different definitions of membership, non-active members on membership rolls, out-of-date membership numbers, difficulty in assessing membership numbers in remote areas, etc. For a variety of reasons, problems with membership data tend to be especially (but not exclusively) present in the central conferences.
When looking over membership numbers, then, there can be sudden and (to the outside observer unfamiliar with a local context) confusing jumps in membership (up or down) or missing data for some annual conferences for a quadrennium.
For these reasons, it would be nice if clergy numbers gave a more consistent story. However, it does not appear that they do so in all cases.
There is still plenty of instances in which clergy numbers are missing for an annual conference for a quadrennium. There are still instances in which clergy numbers suddenly jump significantly up or down for reasons that are not clear to outside observers. It seems possible that different annual conferences may be using different methods of calculating clergy numbers. (More on that in a minute.)
For all these reasons, clergy numbers are not a perfect dataset that one can use to help sort out questions raised by lay membership.
The Roles (and Perhaps Definitions) of Clergy Are Very Different in Different Contexts
When one compares the ratio of laity to clergy in different areas of the world, it allows one to see just how different that role is in different locations. Having one clergyperson for every 16 lay members (as in Northwest Russia in 2014) is a very different model of church than having one clergyperson for every 5507 lay members (as in Cote d’Ivoire in the same year).
There are a lot of factors that could be behind such variation: average congregational size, number of congregations served per clergyperson, number of clergypersons in extension ministry, number of congregations served by lay leaders or others not included in the category of clergy.
It is also quite possible that there is some variation around the world in terms of who is included in the category of “clergy.” While one might presume that this category includes ordained, active clergy, The United Methodist Church is notoriously fuzzy in terms of who counts as clergy: What about people who are commissioned but not ordained? What about associate members of conference? What about licensed local pastors? What about retirees serving part-time? The list goes on.
Even differences in one or two of these categories for defining who is included in the count could lead to significant differences across contexts in the number of clergypersons counted.
Still, differences in definition aside, clergypersons in parts of Africa are clearly serving many more lay people than clergypersons elsewhere in the connection. This difference probably stems from both greater demands on clergy in these parts of Africa (again, more on that in a minute) and greater lay leadership of the church there.
Tracking Clergy Membership Is Important
In The United Methodist Church, there is a lot of attention paid to lay membership numbers as an indicator of denominational health: where membership is increasing, where it is decreasing, etc. At times, this focus on lay membership can seem like a bit of an obsession even.
At the same time as all this attention is paid to lay membership, relatively little attention is paid to clergy membership. The attention that is paid tends to be focused on clergy membership as an indicator of justice: The ratio of women to men, the presence of clergy of various races, nationalities, and ages.
This focus on clergy membership as an indicator of justice is good and appropriate. But I think that the UMC should also pay more attention to clergy membership and the ratio of laity to clergy as indicators of denominational health, rather than focusing exclusively on lay membership for that purpose.
Here are three examples of what attention to clergy numbers and the ration of laity to clergy can tell us about the health of the denomination in various places:
It can tell us about the membership stability of the church. Areas where there is significant growth in lay membership should be accompanied, sooner or later, by an increase in the number of clergy. Otherwise, there is a real risk that the increased lay membership will not remain in the UMC, if people feel neglected or ignored by the leadership of the church. Even in instances of flat lay membership, a drop in the number of clergy may spell impending declines in lay membership as well.
It can tell us about the financial stability of the church. In much of the United States, there has been a decline in both lay and clergy membership. But the two rates of decline are not always equal. Thus, over the past three quadrennium, there are fewer lay people per clergy person. This means fewer people giving towards the support of clergy salaries (along with buildings and connectional ministries). Ultimately, this means that the dominant current model of full-time clergy serving single point charges is becoming less financially sustainable.
It can tell us about the health and well-being of clergy. When clergy are asked to do ever more and serve ever more members, or when clergy are left struggling to make budgets meet every year, that can take a toll on clergy health and well-being. Thus, there are risks for clergy burn-out both in areas where the church is growing and in areas where it is declining, even while those are not the same.
Clergy, however, are one of the church’s most important resources. I am a proud lay person, and I believe in lay leadership in the church, but I also recognize that a healthy denomination requires healthy clergypersons to help lead it.
In the early days of Methodism as a revival movement led by John Wesley, Methodism was not defined by the number of laity connected to it. It was defined as by the group of preachers in connection with Wesley, preachers who supported each other in the work of spreading the revival.
I do not want to go back to a clergy-dominated model, nor do I want to understate the vital role of lay leadership in forwarding the Wesleyan revival. Still, I think there is an insight there worth recovering: Healthy movements have healthy leadership.
In focusing on the health of our denomination, the health of our clergy leaders must be a central part of that conversation. Paying more attention to data trends about clergy numbers is one way to help engage in that conversation.
Following up on comments that Bob Harman has made on previous blogs, I constructed a table of lay membership and clergy numbers by annual conference for the last three quadrennium. Per Bob’s suggestion, this was an attempt to get a different perspective on the rates of growth and decline in the church in various countries.
The full data set is linked above for those who are interested. Rather than try to put that table into this blog (which is a formatting nightmare), I will instead share three reflections on what I have seen in the data as I have reviewed it.
Clergy Membership Data Is Not Necessarily More Reliable that Lay Membership Data
Membership data has a number of notorious problems: different definitions of membership, non-active members on membership rolls, out-of-date membership numbers, difficulty in assessing membership numbers in remote areas, etc. For a variety of reasons, problems with membership data tend to be especially (but not exclusively) present in the central conferences.
When looking over membership numbers, then, there can be sudden and (to the outside observer unfamiliar with a local context) confusing jumps in membership (up or down) or missing data for some annual conferences for a quadrennium.
For these reasons, it would be nice if clergy numbers gave a more consistent story. However, it does not appear that they do so in all cases.
There is still plenty of instances in which clergy numbers are missing for an annual conference for a quadrennium. There are still instances in which clergy numbers suddenly jump significantly up or down for reasons that are not clear to outside observers. It seems possible that different annual conferences may be using different methods of calculating clergy numbers. (More on that in a minute.)
For all these reasons, clergy numbers are not a perfect dataset that one can use to help sort out questions raised by lay membership.
The Roles (and Perhaps Definitions) of Clergy Are Very Different in Different Contexts
When one compares the ratio of laity to clergy in different areas of the world, it allows one to see just how different that role is in different locations. Having one clergyperson for every 16 lay members (as in Northwest Russia in 2014) is a very different model of church than having one clergyperson for every 5507 lay members (as in Cote d’Ivoire in the same year).
There are a lot of factors that could be behind such variation: average congregational size, number of congregations served per clergyperson, number of clergypersons in extension ministry, number of congregations served by lay leaders or others not included in the category of clergy.
It is also quite possible that there is some variation around the world in terms of who is included in the category of “clergy.” While one might presume that this category includes ordained, active clergy, The United Methodist Church is notoriously fuzzy in terms of who counts as clergy: What about people who are commissioned but not ordained? What about associate members of conference? What about licensed local pastors? What about retirees serving part-time? The list goes on.
Even differences in one or two of these categories for defining who is included in the count could lead to significant differences across contexts in the number of clergypersons counted.
Still, differences in definition aside, clergypersons in parts of Africa are clearly serving many more lay people than clergypersons elsewhere in the connection. This difference probably stems from both greater demands on clergy in these parts of Africa (again, more on that in a minute) and greater lay leadership of the church there.
Tracking Clergy Membership Is Important
In The United Methodist Church, there is a lot of attention paid to lay membership numbers as an indicator of denominational health: where membership is increasing, where it is decreasing, etc. At times, this focus on lay membership can seem like a bit of an obsession even.
At the same time as all this attention is paid to lay membership, relatively little attention is paid to clergy membership. The attention that is paid tends to be focused on clergy membership as an indicator of justice: The ratio of women to men, the presence of clergy of various races, nationalities, and ages.
This focus on clergy membership as an indicator of justice is good and appropriate. But I think that the UMC should also pay more attention to clergy membership and the ratio of laity to clergy as indicators of denominational health, rather than focusing exclusively on lay membership for that purpose.
Here are three examples of what attention to clergy numbers and the ration of laity to clergy can tell us about the health of the denomination in various places:
It can tell us about the membership stability of the church. Areas where there is significant growth in lay membership should be accompanied, sooner or later, by an increase in the number of clergy. Otherwise, there is a real risk that the increased lay membership will not remain in the UMC, if people feel neglected or ignored by the leadership of the church. Even in instances of flat lay membership, a drop in the number of clergy may spell impending declines in lay membership as well.
It can tell us about the financial stability of the church. In much of the United States, there has been a decline in both lay and clergy membership. But the two rates of decline are not always equal. Thus, over the past three quadrennium, there are fewer lay people per clergy person. This means fewer people giving towards the support of clergy salaries (along with buildings and connectional ministries). Ultimately, this means that the dominant current model of full-time clergy serving single point charges is becoming less financially sustainable.
It can tell us about the health and well-being of clergy. When clergy are asked to do ever more and serve ever more members, or when clergy are left struggling to make budgets meet every year, that can take a toll on clergy health and well-being. Thus, there are risks for clergy burn-out both in areas where the church is growing and in areas where it is declining, even while those are not the same.
Clergy, however, are one of the church’s most important resources. I am a proud lay person, and I believe in lay leadership in the church, but I also recognize that a healthy denomination requires healthy clergypersons to help lead it.
In the early days of Methodism as a revival movement led by John Wesley, Methodism was not defined by the number of laity connected to it. It was defined as by the group of preachers in connection with Wesley, preachers who supported each other in the work of spreading the revival.
I do not want to go back to a clergy-dominated model, nor do I want to understate the vital role of lay leadership in forwarding the Wesleyan revival. Still, I think there is an insight there worth recovering: Healthy movements have healthy leadership.
In focusing on the health of our denomination, the health of our clergy leaders must be a central part of that conversation. Paying more attention to data trends about clergy numbers is one way to help engage in that conversation.
Wednesday, May 8, 2019
UMC Membership Growth and Decline Relative to Population
Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.
In my previous post, I reviewed the sources of membership growth and decline in church bodies and asserted that they best way to determine whether a church was growing or declining through new adult members (individual or group) vs. adult disaffiliations (individual or group) was to screen out the impacts of births and deaths on membership numbers. And while religious groups may differ in their birth or death rates from surrounding societies, the easiest way to get a proxy for the impact of purely demographic forces on church membership is to compare church membership to the overall population growth or decline of the surrounding society.
This is what I have tried to do for The United Methodist Church. I have used data from GCFA from 2010, 2014, and 2018 that they collected in the process of determining General Conference delegates. The 2010 data is from a previously-published article by Dana Robert and myself, and the 2014 and 2018 data is publicly available here. I grouped the data into the smallest geographic regions that could be directly compared to secular population growth trends (in the US, jurisdictions and outside the US, countries in most cases). I then compared that data to US Census Bureau data for US state populations and data from the World Population Data Sheet (2010, 2014, and 2018) for countries.
The table is at the end of this article, but here are major findings:
1. In some countries, I concluded that UMC membership data was unreliable for conclusive comparisons to the surrounding country. Any instances in which there was repeated data (the same number submitted two quadrennia in a row) or a more than 50% membership drop in four years or more than 100% growth in four years I regarded as suspect. Ukraine and Moldova, Russia, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Cote d'Ivoire, Nigeria, and Zambia all have repeated membership figures. Nevertheless, in all these cases except Liberia (where there was significant variance) and Cote d'Ivoire (which has never submitted revised figures), those repeated figures were close to later revised figures, indicating that they make still be ballpark reliable. Switzerland/France, Serbia/Macedonia, Poland, and Zimbabwe all had extreme fluctuations in membership numbers that seem very unreliable to me. Data is incomplete for Mozambique, Malawi, and South Africa.
2. Given the above caveat, even though UMC total membership has grown in the past 8 years, that growth is about 6% behind total population growth for its host countries worldwide. While there may be reasons why the UMC has lower birth rates or higher death rates than its host countries overall, it is likely that the UMC worldwide is experiencing more disaffiliation than new membership. The United States is a significant factor in that trend, but not the only one, as elaborated below.
3. The only place where the UMC has a large membership and is growing significantly relative to overall population trends based on relatively reliable data is the Democratic Republic of Congo. There are also some countries in Europe with small membership where there is good growth relative to overall population based on reliable data (Finland, for instance), though their small membership size makes those numbers more susceptible to yielding extreme results when calculated on a percentage basis.
4. There are a number of countries in Africa where UMC membership growth is trailing, sometimes quite significantly, overall population growth. East Africa and Angola are examples with relatively good data. Assuming that the data for Nigeria and Zambia is relatively reliable despite repeated figures, membership in those countries also significantly lags overall population growth.
5. Within the United States, relative to overall population trends, there is essentially no difference among the North Central, Northeastern, South Central, and Southeastern Jurisdictions in how they’ve done membership-wise in the past decade. The slower rate of membership decline in the south relative to the north is entirely a function of greater population growth in southern states (in large part due to in-migration from the north).
6. The Western Jurisdiction has had notably more significant membership decline than the rest of US United Methodism. Given that there is no difference among other regions despite theological variations among them, I think it’s possible than non-theological factors may explain the difference between the Western Jurisdiction and the rest of the US church. The UMC has always had a weaker position in society in the West than in the rest of the country. The Western US is also the most racially and ethnically diverse region of the country, which impacts the membership numbers for an overwhelmingly white denomination like the UMC.
7. Relative to overall population trends, the UMC may actually be doing worse in the Philippines than it is in the US. While total UMC membership in the Philippines in 2018 was about where it was in 2014, the overall Filipino population has grown significantly. Thus, steady membership in the Philippines actually represents a notable loss relative to demographic factors.
Again, these numbers don't in and of themselves prove anything about theology, church polity, missional strategies, or distribution of resources. Those are all questions that need to be collectively assessed drawing on a variety of values and types of information. But good data about actual trends in membership gains and losses is undoubtedly one of those resources.
* The East Africa Episcopal Area includes South Sudan and Ethiopia, but these countries' populations are excluded from the totals due to the small amount of UMC membership in them.
* The population figures for the Switzerland-France-North Africa Annual Conference do not include populations in North Africa, given the small amount of UMC membership there.
In my previous post, I reviewed the sources of membership growth and decline in church bodies and asserted that they best way to determine whether a church was growing or declining through new adult members (individual or group) vs. adult disaffiliations (individual or group) was to screen out the impacts of births and deaths on membership numbers. And while religious groups may differ in their birth or death rates from surrounding societies, the easiest way to get a proxy for the impact of purely demographic forces on church membership is to compare church membership to the overall population growth or decline of the surrounding society.
This is what I have tried to do for The United Methodist Church. I have used data from GCFA from 2010, 2014, and 2018 that they collected in the process of determining General Conference delegates. The 2010 data is from a previously-published article by Dana Robert and myself, and the 2014 and 2018 data is publicly available here. I grouped the data into the smallest geographic regions that could be directly compared to secular population growth trends (in the US, jurisdictions and outside the US, countries in most cases). I then compared that data to US Census Bureau data for US state populations and data from the World Population Data Sheet (2010, 2014, and 2018) for countries.
The table is at the end of this article, but here are major findings:
1. In some countries, I concluded that UMC membership data was unreliable for conclusive comparisons to the surrounding country. Any instances in which there was repeated data (the same number submitted two quadrennia in a row) or a more than 50% membership drop in four years or more than 100% growth in four years I regarded as suspect. Ukraine and Moldova, Russia, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Cote d'Ivoire, Nigeria, and Zambia all have repeated membership figures. Nevertheless, in all these cases except Liberia (where there was significant variance) and Cote d'Ivoire (which has never submitted revised figures), those repeated figures were close to later revised figures, indicating that they make still be ballpark reliable. Switzerland/France, Serbia/Macedonia, Poland, and Zimbabwe all had extreme fluctuations in membership numbers that seem very unreliable to me. Data is incomplete for Mozambique, Malawi, and South Africa.
2. Given the above caveat, even though UMC total membership has grown in the past 8 years, that growth is about 6% behind total population growth for its host countries worldwide. While there may be reasons why the UMC has lower birth rates or higher death rates than its host countries overall, it is likely that the UMC worldwide is experiencing more disaffiliation than new membership. The United States is a significant factor in that trend, but not the only one, as elaborated below.
3. The only place where the UMC has a large membership and is growing significantly relative to overall population trends based on relatively reliable data is the Democratic Republic of Congo. There are also some countries in Europe with small membership where there is good growth relative to overall population based on reliable data (Finland, for instance), though their small membership size makes those numbers more susceptible to yielding extreme results when calculated on a percentage basis.
4. There are a number of countries in Africa where UMC membership growth is trailing, sometimes quite significantly, overall population growth. East Africa and Angola are examples with relatively good data. Assuming that the data for Nigeria and Zambia is relatively reliable despite repeated figures, membership in those countries also significantly lags overall population growth.
5. Within the United States, relative to overall population trends, there is essentially no difference among the North Central, Northeastern, South Central, and Southeastern Jurisdictions in how they’ve done membership-wise in the past decade. The slower rate of membership decline in the south relative to the north is entirely a function of greater population growth in southern states (in large part due to in-migration from the north).
6. The Western Jurisdiction has had notably more significant membership decline than the rest of US United Methodism. Given that there is no difference among other regions despite theological variations among them, I think it’s possible than non-theological factors may explain the difference between the Western Jurisdiction and the rest of the US church. The UMC has always had a weaker position in society in the West than in the rest of the country. The Western US is also the most racially and ethnically diverse region of the country, which impacts the membership numbers for an overwhelmingly white denomination like the UMC.
7. Relative to overall population trends, the UMC may actually be doing worse in the Philippines than it is in the US. While total UMC membership in the Philippines in 2018 was about where it was in 2014, the overall Filipino population has grown significantly. Thus, steady membership in the Philippines actually represents a notable loss relative to demographic factors.
Again, these numbers don't in and of themselves prove anything about theology, church polity, missional strategies, or distribution of resources. Those are all questions that need to be collectively assessed drawing on a variety of values and types of information. But good data about actual trends in membership gains and losses is undoubtedly one of those resources.
| Region | 2010 Church Membership | 2014 Church Membership | 2018 Church Membership | % Change 2010-2018 | 2010 Population | 2014 Population | 2018 Population | % Change 2010-2018 | Membership vs. Population |
| North Central Jurisdiction | 1,346,180 | 1,270,124 | 1,189,259 | -11.66% | 56,291,024 | 56,942,246 | 57,341,519 | 1.87% | -13.52% |
| Northeastern Jurisdiction | 1,329,181 | 1,257,546 | 1,168,609 | -12.08% | 64,525,181 | 65,418,605 | 65,629,255 | 1.71% | -13.79% |
| South Central Jurisdiction | 1,739,946 | 1,707,526 | 1,652,134 | -5.05% | 49,217,134 | 51,394,492 | 53,381,380 | 8.46% | -13.51% |
| Southeastern Jurisdiction | 2,894,485 | 2,815,145 | 2,752,106 | -4.92% | 69,250,709 | 71,787,557 | 74,917,045 | 8.18% | -13.10% |
| Western Jurisdiction | 365,793 | 340,350 | 312,230 | -14.64% | 70,039,037 | 72,870,240 | 75,898,235 | 8.37% | -23.01% |
| Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, & Uganda | 170,725 | 243,459 | 173,806 | 1.80% | 92,700,000 | 103,600,000 | 119,500,000 | 28.91% | -27.11% |
| Angola | 184,981 | 132,722 | 164,634 | -11.00% | 19,000,000 | 22,400,000 | 30,400,000 | 60.00% | -71.00% |
| Mozambique | 46,038 | 136,707 | 85,249 | 85.17% | 23,400,000 | 25,100,000 | 30,500,000 | 30.34% | 54.83% |
| South Africa | 0 | 9,102 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 49,900,000 | 53,700,000 | 57,700,000 | 15.63% | #DIV/0! |
| Zimbabwe | 48,942 | 138,547 | 148,892 | 204.22% | 12,600,000 | 14,700,000 | 14,000,000 | 11.11% | 193.11% |
| Malawi | 0 | 8,389 | 9,968 | #DIV/0! | 15,400,000 | 16,800,000 | 19,100,000 | 24.03% | #DIV/0! |
| Dem. Rep. of Congo and Tanzania | 1,803,530 | 2,436,777 | 2,869,536 | 59.11% | 112,800,000 | 122,000,000 | 143,400,000 | 27.13% | 31.98% |
| Zambia | 133,103 | 133,103 | 129,604 | -2.63% | 13,300,000 | 15,100,000 | 17,700,000 | 33.08% | -35.71% |
| Liberia | 148,382 | 148,382 | 281,007 | 89.38% | 4,100,000 | 4,400,000 | 4,900,000 | 19.51% | 69.87% |
| Sierra Leone | 225,000 | 225,000 | 285,083 | 26.70% | 5,800,000 | 6,300,000 | 7,700,000 | 32.76% | -6.06% |
| Cote d'Ivoire | 677,355 | 677,355 | 677,355 | 0.00% | 22,000,000 | 20,800,000 | 24,900,000 | 13.18% | -13.18% |
| Nigeria | 457,959 | 457,959 | 463,957 | 1.31% | 158,300,000 | 177,500,000 | 195,900,000 | 23.75% | -22.44% |
| Austria | 726 | 746 | 729 | 0.41% | 8,400,000 | 8,500,000 | 8,800,000 | 4.76% | -4.35% |
| Bulgaria | 1,300 | 1,257 | 1,251 | -3.77% | 7,500,000 | 7,200,000 | 7,000,000 | -6.67% | 2.90% |
| Czech and Slovak Republics | 855 | 1,087 | 1,126 | 31.70% | 15,900,000 | 15,900,000 | 16,000,000 | 0.63% | 31.07% |
| Hungary | 375 | 437 | 449 | 19.73% | 10,000,000 | 9,900,000 | 9,800,000 | -2.00% | 21.73% |
| Serbia-Macedonia | 2,160 | 2,012 | 468 | -78.33% | 9,400,000 | 9,200,000 | 9,100,000 | -3.19% | -75.14% |
| Poland | 7,706 | 2,161 | 2,375 | -69.18% | 38,200,000 | 38,500,000 | 38,400,000 | 0.52% | -69.70% |
| Switzerland-France | 3,040 | 7,652 | 6,763 | 122.47% | 70,800,000 | 72,300,000 | 73,600,000 | 3.95% | 118.51% |
| Germany | 32,305 | 32,108 | 30,122 | -6.76% | 81,600,000 | 80,900,000 | 82,800,000 | 1.47% | -8.23% |
| Denmark | 1,252 | 1,242 | 1,233 | -1.52% | 5,500,000 | 5,600,000 | 5,800,000 | 5.45% | -6.97% |
| Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania | 2,764 | 2,411 | 1,690 | -38.86% | 6,800,000 | 6,200,000 | 6,000,000 | -11.76% | -27.09% |
| Finland | 1,304 | 1,270 | 1,642 | 25.92% | 5,400,000 | 5,500,000 | 5,500,000 | 1.85% | 24.07% |
| Norway | 4,410 | 4,310 | 4,237 | -3.92% | 4,900,000 | 5,100,000 | 5,300,000 | 8.16% | -12.09% |
| Russia | 1,699 | 1,699 | 1,363 | -19.78% | 141,900,000 | 143,700,000 | 147,300,000 | 3.81% | -23.58% |
| Ukraine and Moldova | 551 | 551 | 0 | -100.00% | 50,000,000 | 47,000,000 | 45,800,000 | -8.40% | -91.60% |
| The Philippines | 145,642 | 216,326 | 140,235 | -3.71% | 94,000,000 | 100,100,000 | 107,000,000 | 13.83% | -17.54% |
| Overall | 11,777,689 | 12,413,462 | 12,557,112 | 6.62% | 1,388,923,085 | 1,456,413,140 | 1,561,067,434 | 12.39% | -5.78% |
* The East Africa Episcopal Area includes South Sudan and Ethiopia, but these countries' populations are excluded from the totals due to the small amount of UMC membership in them.
* The population figures for the Switzerland-France-North Africa Annual Conference do not include populations in North Africa, given the small amount of UMC membership there.
Monday, May 6, 2019
Factors Influencing Church Growth
Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology at the General Board of Global Ministries.
The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not
reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.
Within the United Methodist Church, and within American conversations about Christianity generally, there is a frequent preoccupation with church membership growth (or decline). United Methodists frequently ask, "Is that congregation growing?" or "Where is the church growing globally?"
For United Methodists, membership growth equates with success, and growing membership is often taken as a demonstration of the validity of theology, as if popularity proved truth. It is worth noting that this is not a universal Christian assumption. An Anabaptist, for instance, might more readily agree with the notion that truth leads to unpopularity.
Yet given the importance in United Methodist minds of membership growth, it is worth examining in more detail the factors that influence church growth and decline. Membership growth happen when the number of new members exceeds the number of lost members, but there are several factors influencing both sides of that equation, both at a congregational level and for regional bodies.
When most people hear "new members," they think of adult converts. Yet adult converts are only one form of new members, and there are differences among adult converts as well.
The most significant source of new members for most religious tradition is actually not adult converts but children born into the tradition who then remain affiliated with the tradition when they become adults. Thus, the birth rate among present members is one of the largest determining factors in whether churches are growing, especially for churches as regional bodies.
Another way in which the church gains new members, both for local congregations and regional bodies, is through the addition of individual adults to existing congregations. This is the classic adult convert. Yet it is worth distinguishing between adult converts to Christianity and adults who have switched from another Christian tradition. There is value in both, but the two are different groups when it comes to evangelism. It is also worth noting that migration is a significant vector by which existing Christians may be added to a congregation or regional body.
The third way in which churches as regional bodies can add new members is by accepting new groups into the body. Entire congregations or other regional bodies may join a regional body, boosting its membership. Or, an entire group of people might decide to adopt a new religious identity en masse, as has often happened in the history of mission. Either way, growth results not from individual decision-making, but from group decision-making.
On the other side of the equation, the sources of membership loss reflect the sources of membership gain: death, children who leave the tradition upon reaching adulthood, individual adult disaffiliations, and group disaffiliations.
Just as the most common way in which people enter religious groups is through birth, the most common way they leave is through death. Youth adults who leave the tradition in which they grew up may count as membership losses, if they were counted as members as teenagers, but they certainly represent a retardant on growth.
Individual disaffiliations, either through out-migration, for the sake of joining another church, or because of a loss of faith are, of course, a form of membership loss. And whole congregations or larger groups may choose to sever their relationship with a regional body, resulting in membership loss for that regional body.
In a church in which birth and death were the only ways in which people entered and exited the church, the growth or decline of that church would be a purely demographic exercise. To get a sense of whether the church is growing through evangelism (of individuals or groups, Christian or not) or declining through disaffiliation (of individuals or groups), it would be necessary to examine the additional membership variation after births and deaths are factored out.
There are reasons why the birth and death rates of a church body might vary from those of the society in which it is located - theologies of families and reproduction, better access to health care, social practices regarding family planning and elder care, etc. Yet without targeted, intensive research of specific church bodies, birth and death rates are usually only available for societies as whole.
Thus, the best way to get a sense of whether a church body is growing or declining after screening out the demographic factors of births and deaths is to compare its membership trends to the membership trends of its surrounding society. That's exactly what I will do for The United Methodist Church in my next post.
Within the United Methodist Church, and within American conversations about Christianity generally, there is a frequent preoccupation with church membership growth (or decline). United Methodists frequently ask, "Is that congregation growing?" or "Where is the church growing globally?"
For United Methodists, membership growth equates with success, and growing membership is often taken as a demonstration of the validity of theology, as if popularity proved truth. It is worth noting that this is not a universal Christian assumption. An Anabaptist, for instance, might more readily agree with the notion that truth leads to unpopularity.
Yet given the importance in United Methodist minds of membership growth, it is worth examining in more detail the factors that influence church growth and decline. Membership growth happen when the number of new members exceeds the number of lost members, but there are several factors influencing both sides of that equation, both at a congregational level and for regional bodies.
When most people hear "new members," they think of adult converts. Yet adult converts are only one form of new members, and there are differences among adult converts as well.
The most significant source of new members for most religious tradition is actually not adult converts but children born into the tradition who then remain affiliated with the tradition when they become adults. Thus, the birth rate among present members is one of the largest determining factors in whether churches are growing, especially for churches as regional bodies.
Another way in which the church gains new members, both for local congregations and regional bodies, is through the addition of individual adults to existing congregations. This is the classic adult convert. Yet it is worth distinguishing between adult converts to Christianity and adults who have switched from another Christian tradition. There is value in both, but the two are different groups when it comes to evangelism. It is also worth noting that migration is a significant vector by which existing Christians may be added to a congregation or regional body.
The third way in which churches as regional bodies can add new members is by accepting new groups into the body. Entire congregations or other regional bodies may join a regional body, boosting its membership. Or, an entire group of people might decide to adopt a new religious identity en masse, as has often happened in the history of mission. Either way, growth results not from individual decision-making, but from group decision-making.
On the other side of the equation, the sources of membership loss reflect the sources of membership gain: death, children who leave the tradition upon reaching adulthood, individual adult disaffiliations, and group disaffiliations.
Just as the most common way in which people enter religious groups is through birth, the most common way they leave is through death. Youth adults who leave the tradition in which they grew up may count as membership losses, if they were counted as members as teenagers, but they certainly represent a retardant on growth.
Individual disaffiliations, either through out-migration, for the sake of joining another church, or because of a loss of faith are, of course, a form of membership loss. And whole congregations or larger groups may choose to sever their relationship with a regional body, resulting in membership loss for that regional body.
In a church in which birth and death were the only ways in which people entered and exited the church, the growth or decline of that church would be a purely demographic exercise. To get a sense of whether the church is growing through evangelism (of individuals or groups, Christian or not) or declining through disaffiliation (of individuals or groups), it would be necessary to examine the additional membership variation after births and deaths are factored out.
There are reasons why the birth and death rates of a church body might vary from those of the society in which it is located - theologies of families and reproduction, better access to health care, social practices regarding family planning and elder care, etc. Yet without targeted, intensive research of specific church bodies, birth and death rates are usually only available for societies as whole.
Thus, the best way to get a sense of whether a church body is growing or declining after screening out the demographic factors of births and deaths is to compare its membership trends to the membership trends of its surrounding society. That's exactly what I will do for The United Methodist Church in my next post.
Wednesday, April 4, 2018
Resource: More world Methodist maps
Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.
A few weeks ago, I published links indicating the presence of various World Methodist Council member denominations in countries around the world. Now, with some additional research (using the World Christian Database, the World Methodist Council website, and denominational websites), I have been able to compile maps showing total Methodist/Wesleyan membership by country and Methodism/Wesleyanism as a percentage of each country's population. Those maps are below.
First, a couple of caveats: I did not include the membership of United/Uniting denominations that are part of the World Methodist Council. I did not think it was fair to include all members as "Methodist" when these churches were formed out of the mergers of many Protestant traditions. Also, data is never perfect, and the data these maps are based on may not be perfect, especially in the case of smaller countries or countries with small Methodist/Wesleyan presence. In particular, I was not able to get country-level data for The Wesleyan Church, the Methodist Church of Southern Africa, the Methodist Church of the Caribbean and Americas, and the Korean Methodist Church outside Korea directly from those denominations' websites, so I am relying on the less accurate WCD data for them.
Overall, these maps indicate that Methodism/Wesleyanism's areas of greatest strength are the United States, coastal West Africa, South Korea, the Democratic Republic of Congo, southern Africa, the Caribbean, and parts of the Pacific. Methodism/Wesleyanism has a moderate presence in Latin America, south Asia, and southeast Asia. It is weak in Europe and central Asia. It is mostly non-existent in the Muslim world.
Methodist/Wesleyan Membership Totals
Note that those countries with large Methodist populations have a large total population and/or a large percentage of the population that is Methodist.
The United States has by far the largest number of Methodists/Wesleyans. 6 of the top 10 countries with the most Methodists/Wesleyans are African.
The top 10 countries with the largest Methodist populations are as follows:
1. The United States of America (13,689,000 Methodists/Wesleyans)
2. Nigeria (3,304,000 Methodists/Wesleyans)
3. India (3,154,000 Methodists/Wesleyans)
4. Democratic Republic of Congo (2,910,000 Methodists/Wesleyans)
5. South Korea (2,214,000 Methodists/Wesleyans)
6. South Africa (1,676,000 Methodists/Wesleyans)
7. Ghana (900,000 Methodists/Wesleyans)
8. Cote d'Ivoire (688,000 Methodists/Wesleyans)
9. Kenya (631,000 Methodists/Wesleyans)
10. Brazil (412,000 Methodists/Wesleyans)
Methodism/Wesleyanism as a Percentage of the Population
Most of the countries with the highest percentage of Methodists/Wesleyans in the population are small island nations in the Caribbean or Pacific with low overall populations. Liberia is the non-island nation with the highest percentage of its population that are Methodist/Wesleyan (6.9%), and it does not make the top ten. 6 of the top 10 most Methodist non-island nations are African.
Top 10 countries with the highest Methodist percentage of the population
1. Tonga (46.1% Methodist/Wesleyan)
2. Fiji (30.5% Methodist/Wesleyan)
3. Samoa (24.4% Methodist/Wesleyan)
4. St. Kitts and Nevis (22.0% Methodist/Wesleyan)
5. St. Vincent and the Grenadines (17.0% Methodist/Wesleyan)
6. Anguilla (16.0% Methodist/Wesleyan)
7. Bermuda (15.4% Methodist/Wesleyan)
8. American Samoa (14.9% Methodist/Wesleyan)
9. Turks and Caicos (14.7% Methodist/Wesleyan)
10. Antigua and Barbuda (9.7% Methodist/Wesleyan)
Top 10 non-island countries with the highest Methodist percentage of the population
1. Liberia (6.9% Methodist/Wesleyan)
2. Sierra Leone (5.0% Methodist/Wesleyan)
3. South Korea (4.3% Methodist/Wesleyan)
4. The United States of America (4.2% Methodist/Wesleyan)
5. Belize (3.5 % Methodist/Wesleyan)
6. Democratic Republic of Congo (3.5% Methodist/Wesleyan)
7. Ghana (3.0% Methodist/Wesleyan)
8. South Africa (2.9% Methodist/Wesleyan)
9. Guyana (2.8% Methodist/Wesleyan)
10. Cote d'Ivoire (2.8% Methodist/Wesleyan)
Continental totals
Finally, for those who are interested in the total membership, including United/Uniting churches, of World Methodist Council bodies broken out by continent, here's a map of that:
A few weeks ago, I published links indicating the presence of various World Methodist Council member denominations in countries around the world. Now, with some additional research (using the World Christian Database, the World Methodist Council website, and denominational websites), I have been able to compile maps showing total Methodist/Wesleyan membership by country and Methodism/Wesleyanism as a percentage of each country's population. Those maps are below.
First, a couple of caveats: I did not include the membership of United/Uniting denominations that are part of the World Methodist Council. I did not think it was fair to include all members as "Methodist" when these churches were formed out of the mergers of many Protestant traditions. Also, data is never perfect, and the data these maps are based on may not be perfect, especially in the case of smaller countries or countries with small Methodist/Wesleyan presence. In particular, I was not able to get country-level data for The Wesleyan Church, the Methodist Church of Southern Africa, the Methodist Church of the Caribbean and Americas, and the Korean Methodist Church outside Korea directly from those denominations' websites, so I am relying on the less accurate WCD data for them.
Overall, these maps indicate that Methodism/Wesleyanism's areas of greatest strength are the United States, coastal West Africa, South Korea, the Democratic Republic of Congo, southern Africa, the Caribbean, and parts of the Pacific. Methodism/Wesleyanism has a moderate presence in Latin America, south Asia, and southeast Asia. It is weak in Europe and central Asia. It is mostly non-existent in the Muslim world.
Methodist/Wesleyan Membership Totals
Note that those countries with large Methodist populations have a large total population and/or a large percentage of the population that is Methodist.
The United States has by far the largest number of Methodists/Wesleyans. 6 of the top 10 countries with the most Methodists/Wesleyans are African.
The top 10 countries with the largest Methodist populations are as follows:
1. The United States of America (13,689,000 Methodists/Wesleyans)
2. Nigeria (3,304,000 Methodists/Wesleyans)
3. India (3,154,000 Methodists/Wesleyans)
4. Democratic Republic of Congo (2,910,000 Methodists/Wesleyans)
5. South Korea (2,214,000 Methodists/Wesleyans)
6. South Africa (1,676,000 Methodists/Wesleyans)
7. Ghana (900,000 Methodists/Wesleyans)
8. Cote d'Ivoire (688,000 Methodists/Wesleyans)
9. Kenya (631,000 Methodists/Wesleyans)
10. Brazil (412,000 Methodists/Wesleyans)
Methodism/Wesleyanism as a Percentage of the Population
Most of the countries with the highest percentage of Methodists/Wesleyans in the population are small island nations in the Caribbean or Pacific with low overall populations. Liberia is the non-island nation with the highest percentage of its population that are Methodist/Wesleyan (6.9%), and it does not make the top ten. 6 of the top 10 most Methodist non-island nations are African.
Top 10 countries with the highest Methodist percentage of the population
1. Tonga (46.1% Methodist/Wesleyan)
2. Fiji (30.5% Methodist/Wesleyan)
3. Samoa (24.4% Methodist/Wesleyan)
4. St. Kitts and Nevis (22.0% Methodist/Wesleyan)
5. St. Vincent and the Grenadines (17.0% Methodist/Wesleyan)
6. Anguilla (16.0% Methodist/Wesleyan)
7. Bermuda (15.4% Methodist/Wesleyan)
8. American Samoa (14.9% Methodist/Wesleyan)
9. Turks and Caicos (14.7% Methodist/Wesleyan)
10. Antigua and Barbuda (9.7% Methodist/Wesleyan)
Top 10 non-island countries with the highest Methodist percentage of the population
1. Liberia (6.9% Methodist/Wesleyan)
2. Sierra Leone (5.0% Methodist/Wesleyan)
3. South Korea (4.3% Methodist/Wesleyan)
4. The United States of America (4.2% Methodist/Wesleyan)
5. Belize (3.5 % Methodist/Wesleyan)
6. Democratic Republic of Congo (3.5% Methodist/Wesleyan)
7. Ghana (3.0% Methodist/Wesleyan)
8. South Africa (2.9% Methodist/Wesleyan)
9. Guyana (2.8% Methodist/Wesleyan)
10. Cote d'Ivoire (2.8% Methodist/Wesleyan)
Continental totals
Finally, for those who are interested in the total membership, including United/Uniting churches, of World Methodist Council bodies broken out by continent, here's a map of that:
Friday, February 23, 2018
Analysis of the locations of World Methodist Council denominations
Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.
Earlier this week, I posted a series of maps indicating which World Methodist Council (WMC) member denominations have churches in which countries or territories. As indicated in that post, there are a few disclaimers: the data’s not perfect; it neglects Korean Methodist Church mission; it only shows presence, not relative membership; and it’s hard to decide whether to classify some territories separately from their ruling country. Nevertheless, it’s still possible to draw several conclusions about WMC member denominations and thus the Wesleyan/Methodist movement as a whole from this data.
First, a word on the types of denominations that are part of the WMC may be useful. I have separated WMC member denominations into either national and international bodies.
National bodies are of three types:
1. Autonomous churches formerly affiliated with either British or American Methodism (located in Oceania, Asia, Africa, and especially Latin America)
2. A few autonomous churches recently started in Latin American independently of British or American Methodists
3. United/Uniting denominations incorporating Methodist churches at one point affiliated with British Methodists or the Evangelical United Brethren (in Oceania, Asia, Africa, and Europe)
International bodies are of four types:
1. The Methodist Church of Southern Africa (MCSA) and the Methodist Church in the Caribbean and the Americas (MCCA) are regional denominations, as indicated in their names.
2. There are three historically African-American churches that now including branches in Africa, the Caribbean, South America, India, and Europe (mostly the UK). These are the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church, the African Methodist Episcopal Zion (A.M.E. Zion) Church, and the Christian Methodist Episcopal (CME) Church.
3. The United Methodist Church is a semi-global denomination present in some but not all areas of the world, whose presence/absence was shaped by a series of autonomy departures, mostly in the 60s and 70s.
4. There are three global holiness denominations, located on all continents with no or little history of autonomous separations; therefore, these three are the most widely spread. These are the Church of the Nazarene, The Wesleyan Church, and the Free Methodist Church.
The Korean Methodist Church may deserve to be a fifth type of international church. I know they have member congregations in the United States that are fully integrated into their system of governance. I do not know what the relationships between the parent denomination and newly planted mission churches in other countries are like.
Now, some conclusions drawn by looking at the country-level data:
1. There is a wide range in terms of Wesleyan/Methodist denominational presence in particular countries, from a hundred or fewer members to a million or more members in one denomination in one particular country.
2. Countries with no Wesleyan Methodist presence are mostly Muslim and/or have a small population. This finding is not particularly surprising, as the difficulties in prompting Muslim conversions and the restrictions on religion in Muslim-majority countries are well-documented, and one might reasonably expect small population countries to be less able to support a variety of denominations.
3. Countries with a lot of Wesleyan/Methodist denominations are mostly former parts of the British or US empires. 80% of those countries with 5+ denominations present and all of those countries with 7-8 denominations present are former parts of the British or US empires. (The US empire was less extensive and less formal than the British Empire, but I’m including here the US Virgin Islands, Haiti, the Philippines, and Liberia, all of which were controlled at times by Americans or American settlers.) Again, given the extensive literature on the relationship between mission and empire, especially Protestant mission and the British Empire, this finding is not particularly surprising.
4. The Democratic Republic of Congo, Togo, and Mozambique stand out as particularly receptive to Wesleyan/Methodist denominations, despite lacking an Anglo-American colonial past. All three countries have 6 WMC member denominations. Cote d’Ivoire has 5 WMC member denominations and no Anglo-American colonialism, which is also notable. While all four countries have neighbors with British colonial pasts, more research into why these countries in particular have been receptive to Wesleyan/Methodist traditions would be welcome.
5. Despite the Wesleyan/Methodist movement’s roots in European Pietism and European Enlightenment thought, Europe is not terribly receptive to Wesleyan/Methodist denominations. Most European countries (other than the United Kingdom) have 1-3 WMC member denominations, and their memberships are small. Strong state churches, historic restrictions on religious freedom, and current secularization are all part of this story, but it is worth asking whether there are any other factors at play here.
6. The Wesleyan/Methodist movement is stronger in Latin America than Europe. In most Latin American countries, autonomous Methodist churches and the three holiness churches all have a presence. While many are small, membership is often higher than that in similarly-sized European countries. Latin America shares some cultural history with Europe. It, too, has had dominant state (Catholic) churches and historic religious restrictions. Given these similarities, the question then becomes, why has Wesleyanism/Methodism done better in Latin American than Europe?
7. Southeast Asia is one of the hot new mission fields for Wesleyan/Methodist work, attracting both UMC and holiness mission work. Thailand and Cambodia have new mission work from four denominations, Myanmar has new mission work from three denominations, and Vietnam, Laos, and Indonesia have all attracted two denominations in recent years. All of these new branches of Wesleyanism/Methodism are currently small but growing. More work needs to be done on why Southeast Asia has been such a focus for Wesleyan/Methodist growth in recent years.
Finally, it is worth noting that competition may or may not be good for Wesleyans/Methodists. According to Rodney Stark and Roger Finke, the presence of large numbers of denominations may provide options for religious consumers and/or indicate a de-regulated religious market. They argue that both these factors generally promote high levels of religious affiliation. Thus, competition may be good for membership. Nevertheless, competition also involves duplication of effort, confusion among members and potential converts, conflicts over access to resources, and a potential failure to embody the unity of Christ. Thus, while data shows where WMC member denominations are and are not located, it cannot determine whether these patterns of presence are ultimately good or bad.
Earlier this week, I posted a series of maps indicating which World Methodist Council (WMC) member denominations have churches in which countries or territories. As indicated in that post, there are a few disclaimers: the data’s not perfect; it neglects Korean Methodist Church mission; it only shows presence, not relative membership; and it’s hard to decide whether to classify some territories separately from their ruling country. Nevertheless, it’s still possible to draw several conclusions about WMC member denominations and thus the Wesleyan/Methodist movement as a whole from this data.
First, a word on the types of denominations that are part of the WMC may be useful. I have separated WMC member denominations into either national and international bodies.
National bodies are of three types:
1. Autonomous churches formerly affiliated with either British or American Methodism (located in Oceania, Asia, Africa, and especially Latin America)
2. A few autonomous churches recently started in Latin American independently of British or American Methodists
3. United/Uniting denominations incorporating Methodist churches at one point affiliated with British Methodists or the Evangelical United Brethren (in Oceania, Asia, Africa, and Europe)
International bodies are of four types:
1. The Methodist Church of Southern Africa (MCSA) and the Methodist Church in the Caribbean and the Americas (MCCA) are regional denominations, as indicated in their names.
2. There are three historically African-American churches that now including branches in Africa, the Caribbean, South America, India, and Europe (mostly the UK). These are the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church, the African Methodist Episcopal Zion (A.M.E. Zion) Church, and the Christian Methodist Episcopal (CME) Church.
3. The United Methodist Church is a semi-global denomination present in some but not all areas of the world, whose presence/absence was shaped by a series of autonomy departures, mostly in the 60s and 70s.
4. There are three global holiness denominations, located on all continents with no or little history of autonomous separations; therefore, these three are the most widely spread. These are the Church of the Nazarene, The Wesleyan Church, and the Free Methodist Church.
The Korean Methodist Church may deserve to be a fifth type of international church. I know they have member congregations in the United States that are fully integrated into their system of governance. I do not know what the relationships between the parent denomination and newly planted mission churches in other countries are like.
Now, some conclusions drawn by looking at the country-level data:
1. There is a wide range in terms of Wesleyan/Methodist denominational presence in particular countries, from a hundred or fewer members to a million or more members in one denomination in one particular country.
2. Countries with no Wesleyan Methodist presence are mostly Muslim and/or have a small population. This finding is not particularly surprising, as the difficulties in prompting Muslim conversions and the restrictions on religion in Muslim-majority countries are well-documented, and one might reasonably expect small population countries to be less able to support a variety of denominations.
3. Countries with a lot of Wesleyan/Methodist denominations are mostly former parts of the British or US empires. 80% of those countries with 5+ denominations present and all of those countries with 7-8 denominations present are former parts of the British or US empires. (The US empire was less extensive and less formal than the British Empire, but I’m including here the US Virgin Islands, Haiti, the Philippines, and Liberia, all of which were controlled at times by Americans or American settlers.) Again, given the extensive literature on the relationship between mission and empire, especially Protestant mission and the British Empire, this finding is not particularly surprising.
4. The Democratic Republic of Congo, Togo, and Mozambique stand out as particularly receptive to Wesleyan/Methodist denominations, despite lacking an Anglo-American colonial past. All three countries have 6 WMC member denominations. Cote d’Ivoire has 5 WMC member denominations and no Anglo-American colonialism, which is also notable. While all four countries have neighbors with British colonial pasts, more research into why these countries in particular have been receptive to Wesleyan/Methodist traditions would be welcome.
5. Despite the Wesleyan/Methodist movement’s roots in European Pietism and European Enlightenment thought, Europe is not terribly receptive to Wesleyan/Methodist denominations. Most European countries (other than the United Kingdom) have 1-3 WMC member denominations, and their memberships are small. Strong state churches, historic restrictions on religious freedom, and current secularization are all part of this story, but it is worth asking whether there are any other factors at play here.
6. The Wesleyan/Methodist movement is stronger in Latin America than Europe. In most Latin American countries, autonomous Methodist churches and the three holiness churches all have a presence. While many are small, membership is often higher than that in similarly-sized European countries. Latin America shares some cultural history with Europe. It, too, has had dominant state (Catholic) churches and historic religious restrictions. Given these similarities, the question then becomes, why has Wesleyanism/Methodism done better in Latin American than Europe?
7. Southeast Asia is one of the hot new mission fields for Wesleyan/Methodist work, attracting both UMC and holiness mission work. Thailand and Cambodia have new mission work from four denominations, Myanmar has new mission work from three denominations, and Vietnam, Laos, and Indonesia have all attracted two denominations in recent years. All of these new branches of Wesleyanism/Methodism are currently small but growing. More work needs to be done on why Southeast Asia has been such a focus for Wesleyan/Methodist growth in recent years.
Finally, it is worth noting that competition may or may not be good for Wesleyans/Methodists. According to Rodney Stark and Roger Finke, the presence of large numbers of denominations may provide options for religious consumers and/or indicate a de-regulated religious market. They argue that both these factors generally promote high levels of religious affiliation. Thus, competition may be good for membership. Nevertheless, competition also involves duplication of effort, confusion among members and potential converts, conflicts over access to resources, and a potential failure to embody the unity of Christ. Thus, while data shows where WMC member denominations are and are not located, it cannot determine whether these patterns of presence are ultimately good or bad.
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
Resource: Maps of locations of World Methodist Council denominations
Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.
As a research aid and an aid to thinking about the shape of the global Wesleyan/Methodist movement, I have compiled maps indicating the presence of member denominations of the World Methodist Council, the ecumenical body bringing together over 70 Methodist, Wesleyan, and related United/Uniting denominations. The WMC does not include all Methodist/Wesleyan denominations everywhere, but its members include the vast majority of Methodist/Wesleyan Christians.
Using information found on the WMC site, information on the sites of member denominations, and data from the World Christian Database, I compiled a list of all countries where one or more member denominations of the WMC have congregations. I also made a distinction between national denominations (those denominations with members and churches primarily in a single country) and international denominations (those denominations with members and churches in multiple countries, often on multiple continents).
Using that list, I generated a global map highlighting those countries with at least one WMC member denomination.
Here is a static version of that map.
Here is an interactive version of that map.
I also then generated a series of regional maps indicating which specific international denominations operated in particular countries, along with the presence of national autonomous and/or united/uniting denominations in each country.
Here is a .png file of the map for Africa.
Here is a .png file of the map for Asia.
Here is a .png file of the map for Central America and the Caribbean.
Here is a .png file of the map for Europe.
Here is a .png file of the map for North America.
Here is a .png file of the map for Oceania.
Here is a .png file of the map for South America.
Here is a PDF file with all seven regional maps.
There are a couple of caveats to the data and therefore the maps:
1. The data are not perfect. There’s no assurance these maps are 100% accurate or will stay that way for long. Denominations start work in new countries occasionally or have unofficial or unlicensed congregations that may not appear on the public lists.
2. It neglects Korean Methodist Church mission. I know the Korean Methodist Church conducts extensive mission work throughout the world, but I am unfamiliar with how this work is structured in terms of the ecclesial relationships between mission congregations and the Korean Methodist Church.
3. The maps only show presence, not relative membership levels in each country. These vary quite widely from the millions to the dozens. I know such data would be useful, and I may be able to produce it later, but to do so would require an extra challenge of data collection and map making.
4. It is surprisingly difficult to determine what should constitute a "country" for these maps. This difficulty arises not only because of instances of disputed sovereignty, but also because of a number of semi-autonomous relationships between territories and colonial governments. In the Caribbean, I have leaned toward a looser definition of country than elsewhere.
Readers are encouraged to draw their own insights and conclusions from these maps. I will present my insights and conclusions from these maps in a post later this week.
As a research aid and an aid to thinking about the shape of the global Wesleyan/Methodist movement, I have compiled maps indicating the presence of member denominations of the World Methodist Council, the ecumenical body bringing together over 70 Methodist, Wesleyan, and related United/Uniting denominations. The WMC does not include all Methodist/Wesleyan denominations everywhere, but its members include the vast majority of Methodist/Wesleyan Christians.
Using information found on the WMC site, information on the sites of member denominations, and data from the World Christian Database, I compiled a list of all countries where one or more member denominations of the WMC have congregations. I also made a distinction between national denominations (those denominations with members and churches primarily in a single country) and international denominations (those denominations with members and churches in multiple countries, often on multiple continents).
Using that list, I generated a global map highlighting those countries with at least one WMC member denomination.
Here is a static version of that map.
Here is an interactive version of that map.
I also then generated a series of regional maps indicating which specific international denominations operated in particular countries, along with the presence of national autonomous and/or united/uniting denominations in each country.
Here is a .png file of the map for Africa.
Here is a .png file of the map for Asia.
Here is a .png file of the map for Central America and the Caribbean.
Here is a .png file of the map for Europe.
Here is a .png file of the map for North America.
Here is a .png file of the map for Oceania.
Here is a .png file of the map for South America.
Here is a PDF file with all seven regional maps.
There are a couple of caveats to the data and therefore the maps:
1. The data are not perfect. There’s no assurance these maps are 100% accurate or will stay that way for long. Denominations start work in new countries occasionally or have unofficial or unlicensed congregations that may not appear on the public lists.
2. It neglects Korean Methodist Church mission. I know the Korean Methodist Church conducts extensive mission work throughout the world, but I am unfamiliar with how this work is structured in terms of the ecclesial relationships between mission congregations and the Korean Methodist Church.
3. The maps only show presence, not relative membership levels in each country. These vary quite widely from the millions to the dozens. I know such data would be useful, and I may be able to produce it later, but to do so would require an extra challenge of data collection and map making.
4. It is surprisingly difficult to determine what should constitute a "country" for these maps. This difficulty arises not only because of instances of disputed sovereignty, but also because of a number of semi-autonomous relationships between territories and colonial governments. In the Caribbean, I have leaned toward a looser definition of country than elsewhere.
Readers are encouraged to draw their own insights and conclusions from these maps. I will present my insights and conclusions from these maps in a post later this week.
Wednesday, February 14, 2018
Making Sense of UMC Membership Numbers
Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology at the General
Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.
GCFA recently released delegate counts for the 2020 General Conference along with the membership and clergy numbers on which these delegate counts are based. UMNS put out a news story based on this membership data, and I’m sure many others will be combing through it. I wanted to share several observations not highlighted in the UMNS article.
1. The Democratic Republic of the Congo continues to be the great driver of membership growth in the UMC. The Congo Central Conference added nearly half a million members in the last four years, and total membership in the Congo Central Conference now stands at 3 million. This is further evidence that we need to be more specific when we talk about “African” church growth. Even more so than becoming a US-African denomination, the UMC is becoming a US-Congolese denomination.
2. The Congo Central Conference and West Africa Central Conference were the only two central conferences/jurisdictions showing numeric growth in the last four years. West Africa’s growth was driven by very strong membership growth in Liberia and good growth in Sierra Leone. Both countries are seeing the fruits of rebuilding after long civil wars. It’s significant that, although there were individual annual conferences here and there in other central conferences/jurisdictions that grew, overall the trend lines for the UMC were down around the world. Some of that may have been due to new reporting standards (see below), but it complicates the simplistic narrative of “the US and Europe are declining, and Africa and the Philippines are growing” and thus should lead United Methodist leaders to pay more attention to specific dynamics on the ground in various places around the world.
3. This was the first time that membership numbers (and therefore delegates) outside the US were based off of local congregation records instead of numbers provided by annual conference as a whole. Though not without problems, this approach is a more accurate reporting fashion. There was a lot of curiosity as to how this new approach would affect the overall membership numbers, especially in Africa. There were places where the numbers seem to have declined because of this new procedure (East Africa, South Mozambique), but overall the African numbers proved fairly consistent with past figures. Interestingly, there was a much larger drop in the numbers from the Philippines. The membership figures under the new system were 1/3 lower than under the old. My sources tell me this is more reflective of the change in reporting rather than any large defections from the Filipino UMC, but more research could be done.
4. According to these figures, the denomination has 12.5 million members and 66 active bishops serving 66 episcopal areas. Still, not all episcopal areas are the same. The four largest episcopal areas are all in Africa (North Katanga with 1.23 million members, South Katanga with 985,000, Cote d’Ivoire with 677,000, and East Congo with 447,000). Over 1/3 of United Methodists live in just these four episcopal areas. Over 1 in 12 United Methodists worldwide lives in the North Katanga episcopal area alone.
5. The second smallest episcopal area membership-wise is also in Africa. The Eastern Angola episcopal area has a mere 7500 members in it. It is the only one of the five smallest episcopal areas not in Europe. I’m sure there are political/ethnic/historical reasons why the Eastern Angola episcopal area exists, and I don’t expect it to be eliminated. Nevertheless, the discrepancies between it and the largest episcopal areas in Africa indicate some of the challenges the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters faces as it tries to decide where to put four new African bishops. These most recent membership figures will surely feed into that process. It will be interesting to see what comes out.
GCFA recently released delegate counts for the 2020 General Conference along with the membership and clergy numbers on which these delegate counts are based. UMNS put out a news story based on this membership data, and I’m sure many others will be combing through it. I wanted to share several observations not highlighted in the UMNS article.
1. The Democratic Republic of the Congo continues to be the great driver of membership growth in the UMC. The Congo Central Conference added nearly half a million members in the last four years, and total membership in the Congo Central Conference now stands at 3 million. This is further evidence that we need to be more specific when we talk about “African” church growth. Even more so than becoming a US-African denomination, the UMC is becoming a US-Congolese denomination.
2. The Congo Central Conference and West Africa Central Conference were the only two central conferences/jurisdictions showing numeric growth in the last four years. West Africa’s growth was driven by very strong membership growth in Liberia and good growth in Sierra Leone. Both countries are seeing the fruits of rebuilding after long civil wars. It’s significant that, although there were individual annual conferences here and there in other central conferences/jurisdictions that grew, overall the trend lines for the UMC were down around the world. Some of that may have been due to new reporting standards (see below), but it complicates the simplistic narrative of “the US and Europe are declining, and Africa and the Philippines are growing” and thus should lead United Methodist leaders to pay more attention to specific dynamics on the ground in various places around the world.
3. This was the first time that membership numbers (and therefore delegates) outside the US were based off of local congregation records instead of numbers provided by annual conference as a whole. Though not without problems, this approach is a more accurate reporting fashion. There was a lot of curiosity as to how this new approach would affect the overall membership numbers, especially in Africa. There were places where the numbers seem to have declined because of this new procedure (East Africa, South Mozambique), but overall the African numbers proved fairly consistent with past figures. Interestingly, there was a much larger drop in the numbers from the Philippines. The membership figures under the new system were 1/3 lower than under the old. My sources tell me this is more reflective of the change in reporting rather than any large defections from the Filipino UMC, but more research could be done.
4. According to these figures, the denomination has 12.5 million members and 66 active bishops serving 66 episcopal areas. Still, not all episcopal areas are the same. The four largest episcopal areas are all in Africa (North Katanga with 1.23 million members, South Katanga with 985,000, Cote d’Ivoire with 677,000, and East Congo with 447,000). Over 1/3 of United Methodists live in just these four episcopal areas. Over 1 in 12 United Methodists worldwide lives in the North Katanga episcopal area alone.
5. The second smallest episcopal area membership-wise is also in Africa. The Eastern Angola episcopal area has a mere 7500 members in it. It is the only one of the five smallest episcopal areas not in Europe. I’m sure there are political/ethnic/historical reasons why the Eastern Angola episcopal area exists, and I don’t expect it to be eliminated. Nevertheless, the discrepancies between it and the largest episcopal areas in Africa indicate some of the challenges the Standing Committee on Central Conference Matters faces as it tries to decide where to put four new African bishops. These most recent membership figures will surely feed into that process. It will be interesting to see what comes out.
Tuesday, March 28, 2017
Recommended Reading: 500 Years of Protestantism
2017 is the 500th anniversary of the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, generally seen as starting when Martin Luther's 95 Theses were issued in 1517. This anniversary is being marked in myriad ways around the world. One relevant resource related to global Christianity is a recent infographic released by the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. The two-page infographic provides a variety of statistics related to the historical rise and global distribution of Protestant Christianity.
Thursday, March 9, 2017
American UMC decline is a white people problem
Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.
What if I told you that United Methodist membership in the US was growing?
You'd tell me that I was crazy. The narrative of decline is and has been for years one of the strongest narratives in The United Methodist Church in the US. Many words have been spent on trying to make theological and organizational sense of this trend and/or coming up with ways to reverse it.
Yet the UMC has been growing in members in the US over the past two decades, just not among white people. As the table below shows, since 1996, the number of Asian-American and Pacific Islanders has doubled, the number of Hispanics has grown by two-thirds, the number of African-Americans has grown by a third, and the number of Native Americans by a quarter.
Black membership:
1996 - 319,165; 2000 - 382,243; 2004 - 423,456; 2008 - 432,354; 2016 - 438,343
Percent change between 1996 and 2016: +37%
Hispanic membership:
1996 - 42,797; 2000 - 40,652; 2004 - 55,143; 2008 - 61,573; 2016 - 76,332
Percent change between 1996 and 2016: +78%
Asian-American membership:
1996 - 45,271; 2000 - 56,143; 2004 - 73,557; 2008 - 81,382; 2016 - 93,211
Percent change between 1996 and 2016: +106%
Pacific Islander membership:
1996 - 7,220; 2000 - 8,245; 2004 - 12,489; 2008 - 11,378; 2016 - 14,520
Percent change between 1996 and 2016: +101%
Native American membership:
1996 - 17,457; 2000 - 18,766; 2004 - 21,760; 2008 - 22,665; 2016 - 21,440
Percent change between 1996 and 2016: +23%
White membership:
1996 - 8,611,902; 2000 - 7,902,305; 2004 - 7,667,201; 2008 - 7,386,067; 2016 - 6,460,538
Percent change between 1996 and 2016: -21%
The UMC has experienced significant overall membership declines over the past two decades, but these have come entirely from the net loss of white members. Thus, it is fair to say that the UMC in the US does not have a problem with numeric decline. It has a problem with white numeric decline.
Of course, since the UMC is one of the whitest denominations in America, this loss of white membership has meant that overall American United Methodist numbers have gone down. While the UMC has added non-white members, it has not been at a sufficient rate to make up for the loss of white members. This is perhaps not surprising, given the UMC's difficulties as a predominantly white institution in reaching out to people of color (as described here, here, and here).
While this finding does not perhaps change where the denomination is at in terms of membership, money, or trend lines, it should significantly alter how we think about and respond to membership loss in the UMC in the US. Many on both sides of the theological spectrum often cast numeric decline as a sign that the UMC has lost its way and no longer resonates with its context. This finding, however, shows that the UMC does have a message that resonates with at least some segments of its context. This finding should encourage United Methodists to ask questions such as the following:
How can we support, encourage, and expand the United Methodist growth that is already happening among people of color? What changes to the United Methodist system can empower leaders of color to even more effectively spread the gospel? This process will require white United Methodists to listen to and be led by their sisters and brothers of color.
What lessons can minority United Methodists teach their white brothers and sisters about United Methodism and how to be effective evangelists? How can people of color serve as examples for white United Methodists? This process will require white United Methodists to be willing to learn from their sisters and brothers of color.
How do white anxieties about the decline of white, American United Methodism serve to cloud and confuse denominational thinking about its future in the US? Robert P. Jones' recent book, The End of White Christian America, is certain to be relevant here as a resource for thinking about how white, Christian Americans in general have responded to their loss of cultural privilege. This process will require white United Methodists to acknowledge their whiteness and repent of the ways in which their thinking has been shaped by race and not the gospel.
If white American United Methodists are willing to do the difficult and humble work described above, perhaps they, too, could experience some of the growth their brothers and sisters of colors have been experiencing for decades.
What if I told you that United Methodist membership in the US was growing?
You'd tell me that I was crazy. The narrative of decline is and has been for years one of the strongest narratives in The United Methodist Church in the US. Many words have been spent on trying to make theological and organizational sense of this trend and/or coming up with ways to reverse it.
Yet the UMC has been growing in members in the US over the past two decades, just not among white people. As the table below shows, since 1996, the number of Asian-American and Pacific Islanders has doubled, the number of Hispanics has grown by two-thirds, the number of African-Americans has grown by a third, and the number of Native Americans by a quarter.
Black membership:
1996 - 319,165; 2000 - 382,243; 2004 - 423,456; 2008 - 432,354; 2016 - 438,343
Percent change between 1996 and 2016: +37%
Hispanic membership:
1996 - 42,797; 2000 - 40,652; 2004 - 55,143; 2008 - 61,573; 2016 - 76,332
Percent change between 1996 and 2016: +78%
Asian-American membership:
1996 - 45,271; 2000 - 56,143; 2004 - 73,557; 2008 - 81,382; 2016 - 93,211
Percent change between 1996 and 2016: +106%
Pacific Islander membership:
1996 - 7,220; 2000 - 8,245; 2004 - 12,489; 2008 - 11,378; 2016 - 14,520
Percent change between 1996 and 2016: +101%
Native American membership:
1996 - 17,457; 2000 - 18,766; 2004 - 21,760; 2008 - 22,665; 2016 - 21,440
Percent change between 1996 and 2016: +23%
White membership:
1996 - 8,611,902; 2000 - 7,902,305; 2004 - 7,667,201; 2008 - 7,386,067; 2016 - 6,460,538
Percent change between 1996 and 2016: -21%
The UMC has experienced significant overall membership declines over the past two decades, but these have come entirely from the net loss of white members. Thus, it is fair to say that the UMC in the US does not have a problem with numeric decline. It has a problem with white numeric decline.
Of course, since the UMC is one of the whitest denominations in America, this loss of white membership has meant that overall American United Methodist numbers have gone down. While the UMC has added non-white members, it has not been at a sufficient rate to make up for the loss of white members. This is perhaps not surprising, given the UMC's difficulties as a predominantly white institution in reaching out to people of color (as described here, here, and here).
While this finding does not perhaps change where the denomination is at in terms of membership, money, or trend lines, it should significantly alter how we think about and respond to membership loss in the UMC in the US. Many on both sides of the theological spectrum often cast numeric decline as a sign that the UMC has lost its way and no longer resonates with its context. This finding, however, shows that the UMC does have a message that resonates with at least some segments of its context. This finding should encourage United Methodists to ask questions such as the following:
How can we support, encourage, and expand the United Methodist growth that is already happening among people of color? What changes to the United Methodist system can empower leaders of color to even more effectively spread the gospel? This process will require white United Methodists to listen to and be led by their sisters and brothers of color.
What lessons can minority United Methodists teach their white brothers and sisters about United Methodism and how to be effective evangelists? How can people of color serve as examples for white United Methodists? This process will require white United Methodists to be willing to learn from their sisters and brothers of color.
How do white anxieties about the decline of white, American United Methodism serve to cloud and confuse denominational thinking about its future in the US? Robert P. Jones' recent book, The End of White Christian America, is certain to be relevant here as a resource for thinking about how white, Christian Americans in general have responded to their loss of cultural privilege. This process will require white United Methodists to acknowledge their whiteness and repent of the ways in which their thinking has been shaped by race and not the gospel.
If white American United Methodists are willing to do the difficult and humble work described above, perhaps they, too, could experience some of the growth their brothers and sisters of colors have been experiencing for decades.
Tuesday, November 22, 2016
Getting specific about global UMC growth and decline
Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.
The latest figures about UMC membership in the US have been released and, to no one's surprise, they show a continued decline in overall membership. While these results may be unsurprising, they can prompt us to ask deeper questions about United Methodist growth and decline.
Often we tell a narrative about demographics in The United Methodist Church that can be summed up as "The church in the United States is declining. The church in Africa and Asia is growing." While that is generally true, it is helpful to get a more specific sense of how that plays out in various spots.
To do that, I decided to examine the delegate counts for the past five General Conferences ('00 to '16), culled from info on umc.org about those General Conferences (either the guide or the seating chart). I chose this data set for two reasons:
1) It is more readily available online than actual membership numbers, and
2) It gives a sense not only of numeric growth/decline but also growing or declining influence in the denomination.
There are a fixed number of GC delegates, and that number decreased significantly in 2016, which makes these numbers an imperfect proxy for actual membership growth and decline. Yet, the total number of United Methodists worldwide has remained about 12 million, despite areas of growth and decline, so this shortcoming is not as significant as might be imagined.
I looked at both the absolute number of delegates and the number of delegates as a percentage of the whole. Sifting through the data, I noticed five general patterns within the number of General Conference delegates:
1. Declining numbers and percentages of delegates
This pattern essentially applies to all US jurisdictions, though at different rates. Interestingly, it's actually the North Central Jurisdiction that's lost the greatest percentage of delegates, losing over a third of its voting strength between 2000 and 2016. The Southeast Jurisdiction lost the least, losing a fifth of its voting strength, and was relatively unaffected by the voting compression of a reduced number of delegates to GC2016.
2. (Relatively) Steady numbers of delegates.
This pattern holds for most of Europe and the delegates from the concordat churches. Most surprising, however, is that some African annual conferences also fit into this pattern, notably Liberia, Eastern Angola, and a few conferences in the Congo. This is an important reminder that not all branches of the UMC in Africa are growing.
The reduction in total delegates in GC2016 boosted the voting strength of such Annual/Central Conferences, but perhaps not as much as one would imagine. For instance, the 10 concordat votes went from being 1.0% of the total to 1.2%. Northern Europe and Eurasia lost two votes, but increased their vote share from 2.2% to 2.4%.
3. Growth through division
Several geographic areas have gained in both total General Conference delegates and in their percentage of General Conference delegates by creating new annual conferences that then receive the mandatory two representatives to General Conference. The creation of new annual conferences indicates some growth in membership, but annual conferences remaining at the minimum number of delegates indicates that such growth is not large in total numeric terms.
The Philippines have been the largest example of this pattern, having gained 16 GC delegates and nearly doubled their vote strength through annual conference subdivision. Russia is another good example. Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Malawi, and South Africa fit this pattern as well, though the Mozambique South Annual Conference may be starting to see faster growth.
4. Growth and decline
A couple of African annual conferences increased their total General Conference delegates only to see that number subsequently decline. This pattern either indicates that the initial numbers on which the growth was based were unreliable or that there was an actual growth and decline in membership.
Nigeria and Sierra Leone in West Africa are the best examples here. Nigeria had 6 delegates in 2000 before increasing to 44 delegates in 2008 and then falling back to 22 delegates (in three annual conferences) in 2016. Sierra Leone's rise and fall wasn't as dramatic but is nonetheless similar.
5. Significant growth
This pattern includes significant increases in the number of total GC delegates (beyond mandatory minimums) and percentage of delegate strength, with or without annual conference subdivision. This is the picture usually painted of the UMC in Africa. Yet, by now, we've seen that this picture does not hold true for all areas of Africa.
North Katanga, Northwest Katanga, South Congo, and Southwest Katanga in the DRC fit this pattern, as do Tanzania/Tanganyika and Zambia, both also in the Congo Central Conference. East Africa/Burundi is the other good example.
Hence, to revise the pat narrative with which I started this article, here's what we can say about global growth and decline in the UMC: The US is, indeed, declining. Europe and spots of Africa are holding relatively steady. The Philippines, Russia, and southeast Africa have seen steady (though not dramatic) growth accompanied by annual conference division. West Africa has seen some instances of growth and decline. Central Africa is growing significantly.
While numbers are only a part of the story of the church, it is important as we think about the future of our global denomination to have this level of specificity in our understanding of where and how the UMC is and isn't growing and not to rely upon broad generalizations.
The latest figures about UMC membership in the US have been released and, to no one's surprise, they show a continued decline in overall membership. While these results may be unsurprising, they can prompt us to ask deeper questions about United Methodist growth and decline.
Often we tell a narrative about demographics in The United Methodist Church that can be summed up as "The church in the United States is declining. The church in Africa and Asia is growing." While that is generally true, it is helpful to get a more specific sense of how that plays out in various spots.
To do that, I decided to examine the delegate counts for the past five General Conferences ('00 to '16), culled from info on umc.org about those General Conferences (either the guide or the seating chart). I chose this data set for two reasons:
1) It is more readily available online than actual membership numbers, and
2) It gives a sense not only of numeric growth/decline but also growing or declining influence in the denomination.
There are a fixed number of GC delegates, and that number decreased significantly in 2016, which makes these numbers an imperfect proxy for actual membership growth and decline. Yet, the total number of United Methodists worldwide has remained about 12 million, despite areas of growth and decline, so this shortcoming is not as significant as might be imagined.
I looked at both the absolute number of delegates and the number of delegates as a percentage of the whole. Sifting through the data, I noticed five general patterns within the number of General Conference delegates:
1. Declining numbers and percentages of delegates
This pattern essentially applies to all US jurisdictions, though at different rates. Interestingly, it's actually the North Central Jurisdiction that's lost the greatest percentage of delegates, losing over a third of its voting strength between 2000 and 2016. The Southeast Jurisdiction lost the least, losing a fifth of its voting strength, and was relatively unaffected by the voting compression of a reduced number of delegates to GC2016.
2. (Relatively) Steady numbers of delegates.
This pattern holds for most of Europe and the delegates from the concordat churches. Most surprising, however, is that some African annual conferences also fit into this pattern, notably Liberia, Eastern Angola, and a few conferences in the Congo. This is an important reminder that not all branches of the UMC in Africa are growing.
The reduction in total delegates in GC2016 boosted the voting strength of such Annual/Central Conferences, but perhaps not as much as one would imagine. For instance, the 10 concordat votes went from being 1.0% of the total to 1.2%. Northern Europe and Eurasia lost two votes, but increased their vote share from 2.2% to 2.4%.
3. Growth through division
Several geographic areas have gained in both total General Conference delegates and in their percentage of General Conference delegates by creating new annual conferences that then receive the mandatory two representatives to General Conference. The creation of new annual conferences indicates some growth in membership, but annual conferences remaining at the minimum number of delegates indicates that such growth is not large in total numeric terms.
The Philippines have been the largest example of this pattern, having gained 16 GC delegates and nearly doubled their vote strength through annual conference subdivision. Russia is another good example. Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Malawi, and South Africa fit this pattern as well, though the Mozambique South Annual Conference may be starting to see faster growth.
4. Growth and decline
A couple of African annual conferences increased their total General Conference delegates only to see that number subsequently decline. This pattern either indicates that the initial numbers on which the growth was based were unreliable or that there was an actual growth and decline in membership.
Nigeria and Sierra Leone in West Africa are the best examples here. Nigeria had 6 delegates in 2000 before increasing to 44 delegates in 2008 and then falling back to 22 delegates (in three annual conferences) in 2016. Sierra Leone's rise and fall wasn't as dramatic but is nonetheless similar.
5. Significant growth
This pattern includes significant increases in the number of total GC delegates (beyond mandatory minimums) and percentage of delegate strength, with or without annual conference subdivision. This is the picture usually painted of the UMC in Africa. Yet, by now, we've seen that this picture does not hold true for all areas of Africa.
North Katanga, Northwest Katanga, South Congo, and Southwest Katanga in the DRC fit this pattern, as do Tanzania/Tanganyika and Zambia, both also in the Congo Central Conference. East Africa/Burundi is the other good example.
Hence, to revise the pat narrative with which I started this article, here's what we can say about global growth and decline in the UMC: The US is, indeed, declining. Europe and spots of Africa are holding relatively steady. The Philippines, Russia, and southeast Africa have seen steady (though not dramatic) growth accompanied by annual conference division. West Africa has seen some instances of growth and decline. Central Africa is growing significantly.
While numbers are only a part of the story of the church, it is important as we think about the future of our global denomination to have this level of specificity in our understanding of where and how the UMC is and isn't growing and not to rely upon broad generalizations.
Tuesday, November 8, 2016
Recommended reading: The relatively wealthy American UMC
The Pew Research Center recently published an info graphic ranking major US religious groups, including The United Methodist Church, by household income. While the UMC isn't the highest on the chart, its American members do make more than the average American family. The UMC has a lower percentage of households making less than $30,000/year and a higher percentage of families making more than $50,000/year than the US average, giving some credence to the old joke, "Q: What does UMC stand for? A: Upper middle class."
Two brief observations about these data are appropriate:
1. These results again raise questions about the UMC's ability to reach out to new population groups within the US beyond its base of mostly white, mostly middle to upper-middle class American members. As this blog has indicated before, the UMC in the US struggles at times to recognize and go beyond its cultural location, and its class base is part of that cultural location.
2. These results raise questions about relationships between relatively wealthy American United Methodists and relatively poorer United Methodists in Asia and Africa. United Methodists everywhere around the world need to be cognizant of the potential distortions and conflicts financial inequalities can introduce into the familial relations of faith.
Two brief observations about these data are appropriate:
1. These results again raise questions about the UMC's ability to reach out to new population groups within the US beyond its base of mostly white, mostly middle to upper-middle class American members. As this blog has indicated before, the UMC in the US struggles at times to recognize and go beyond its cultural location, and its class base is part of that cultural location.
2. These results raise questions about relationships between relatively wealthy American United Methodists and relatively poorer United Methodists in Asia and Africa. United Methodists everywhere around the world need to be cognizant of the potential distortions and conflicts financial inequalities can introduce into the familial relations of faith.
Thursday, April 21, 2016
Coming to terms with numeric decline in the American UMC
Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Assistant Professor of Religion and Pieper Chair of Servant Leadership at Ripon College.
As I wrote about last week, the latest iteration of Vital Congregations data were released last month. They show growth in some faithful practices among American United Methodists, but declines in the production of new members. Combined with the death and other losses of existing members, this struggle with producing new members contributes to a pattern of numeric decline among American United Methodism that continues a decades-long trend in place since the formation of the denomination through merger in 1968.
I also indicated that this year's numbers have also perpetuated another long-term trend among American United Methodists: the attempt to interpret and make sense of the numeric data. Some of these interpretations anxiously see this trend as a crisis in the denomination. Anxiety might be counter-productive, but even those interpretations that identify an impending crisis contain a belief that is common to most United Methodist interpretations of our American decline: the belief that there is something we can do to reverse it.
The solutions of what we should do to reverse American United Methodist numeric decline vary. Perhaps it is using metrics to focus on vitality. Perhaps it is reorganizing budgets, boards, and agencies. Perhaps it is continuing to emphasize a biblical rejection of homosexuality. Perhaps it is ending the oppression and exclusion of the LGBT community. All of these solutions to American United Methodist decline, varied as they may be, share the belief that American United Methodists can reverse their fate.
That may not, however, be true, at least in the foreseeable future.
If United Methodism was declining while most other churches prospered, that would be an indicator that we suffered from some peculiar dysfunction that, theoretically, could be remedied to produce turnaround.
Yet that's not the case. Mainline Christianity has been in numeric decline for the last half century, and within the last decade, American Christianity as a whole, including evangelical Christianity and Catholicism, has been in numeric decline. There are a few exceptions to the rule, but the general trend is clear, especially for all of the largest denominations in the country. Moreover, because of the generational dynamics of religious change in the United States, that trend will probably continue and even accelerate in the next couple of decades.
It's always possible that the general trend could reverse itself. Following the upward membership trend of the 1950s, few mainline churches in 1960 expected the sort of membership decline that would set in by the end of the decade. As they say in the stock market, past trends do not always determine future results. We might be surprised by a turnaround, and I pray we are.
Moreover, even if we agree that further numeric decline over the next couple of decades is inevitable for the American UMC, that doesn't excuse us from living out our denominational mission to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. We are still called to share our faith through evangelism, to support each other in pursing lives of holiness, and to pass on our faith to future generations. It's possible, too, that carrying out these tasks well will affect the rate at which the UMC experiences membership decline in the US, perhaps significantly decreasing it.
Still, it seems a reasonable conjecture to predict that, no matter how faithful we are, the number of American United Methodists will continue to drop for the foreseeable future. That will strike many as bad news, though it needn't be seen a sign of lack of faithfulness on our part or on God's. While I, too, mourn the loss of faithful United Methodists, I also think such a situation can be a time for prayerful learning as a denomination. It should prompt us to ask two very important questions about our collective life:
1. How do we become a more global denomination in the face of shrinking demographics and (eventually) resources in the historic American base of the denomination?
2. How do we preserve the ethos and values of our current model of structures and programs even when we are no longer able to preserve all of those individual structures and programs?
These questions are what leadership expert Ronald Heifetz would call "adaptive challenges," which means there aren't easy answers. Yet if we're willing to engage them, we may just find that even numeric decline can be a profound time of learning about and communion with God for American United Methodists.
A parallel with the physical declines that precede the death of individuals may be reassuring. While American have a hard time confronting death, God still loves the dying, and the dying process can be a time of deep meaning for those going through it. It used to be a mark of a good Methodist to die well, strong in their faith. As John Wesley said on his own deathbed, "Best of all, God is with us."
Part of what enabled those faithful deaths was a strong assurance in that central Christian truth: Death is not the end. God promises life after death. May we believe that for ourselves, and may we believe that for our church.
As I wrote about last week, the latest iteration of Vital Congregations data were released last month. They show growth in some faithful practices among American United Methodists, but declines in the production of new members. Combined with the death and other losses of existing members, this struggle with producing new members contributes to a pattern of numeric decline among American United Methodism that continues a decades-long trend in place since the formation of the denomination through merger in 1968.
I also indicated that this year's numbers have also perpetuated another long-term trend among American United Methodists: the attempt to interpret and make sense of the numeric data. Some of these interpretations anxiously see this trend as a crisis in the denomination. Anxiety might be counter-productive, but even those interpretations that identify an impending crisis contain a belief that is common to most United Methodist interpretations of our American decline: the belief that there is something we can do to reverse it.
The solutions of what we should do to reverse American United Methodist numeric decline vary. Perhaps it is using metrics to focus on vitality. Perhaps it is reorganizing budgets, boards, and agencies. Perhaps it is continuing to emphasize a biblical rejection of homosexuality. Perhaps it is ending the oppression and exclusion of the LGBT community. All of these solutions to American United Methodist decline, varied as they may be, share the belief that American United Methodists can reverse their fate.
That may not, however, be true, at least in the foreseeable future.
If United Methodism was declining while most other churches prospered, that would be an indicator that we suffered from some peculiar dysfunction that, theoretically, could be remedied to produce turnaround.
Yet that's not the case. Mainline Christianity has been in numeric decline for the last half century, and within the last decade, American Christianity as a whole, including evangelical Christianity and Catholicism, has been in numeric decline. There are a few exceptions to the rule, but the general trend is clear, especially for all of the largest denominations in the country. Moreover, because of the generational dynamics of religious change in the United States, that trend will probably continue and even accelerate in the next couple of decades.
It's always possible that the general trend could reverse itself. Following the upward membership trend of the 1950s, few mainline churches in 1960 expected the sort of membership decline that would set in by the end of the decade. As they say in the stock market, past trends do not always determine future results. We might be surprised by a turnaround, and I pray we are.
Moreover, even if we agree that further numeric decline over the next couple of decades is inevitable for the American UMC, that doesn't excuse us from living out our denominational mission to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. We are still called to share our faith through evangelism, to support each other in pursing lives of holiness, and to pass on our faith to future generations. It's possible, too, that carrying out these tasks well will affect the rate at which the UMC experiences membership decline in the US, perhaps significantly decreasing it.
Still, it seems a reasonable conjecture to predict that, no matter how faithful we are, the number of American United Methodists will continue to drop for the foreseeable future. That will strike many as bad news, though it needn't be seen a sign of lack of faithfulness on our part or on God's. While I, too, mourn the loss of faithful United Methodists, I also think such a situation can be a time for prayerful learning as a denomination. It should prompt us to ask two very important questions about our collective life:
1. How do we become a more global denomination in the face of shrinking demographics and (eventually) resources in the historic American base of the denomination?
2. How do we preserve the ethos and values of our current model of structures and programs even when we are no longer able to preserve all of those individual structures and programs?
These questions are what leadership expert Ronald Heifetz would call "adaptive challenges," which means there aren't easy answers. Yet if we're willing to engage them, we may just find that even numeric decline can be a profound time of learning about and communion with God for American United Methodists.
A parallel with the physical declines that precede the death of individuals may be reassuring. While American have a hard time confronting death, God still loves the dying, and the dying process can be a time of deep meaning for those going through it. It used to be a mark of a good Methodist to die well, strong in their faith. As John Wesley said on his own deathbed, "Best of all, God is with us."
Part of what enabled those faithful deaths was a strong assurance in that central Christian truth: Death is not the end. God promises life after death. May we believe that for ourselves, and may we believe that for our church.
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
Recommended reading: Women by the Numbers
A month ago, we ran a piece by Glory Dharmaraj on "Gender and General Conference." Given the interest in that piece, I want to refer readers to three additional pieces from the General Commission on the States and Role of Women (GCSRW) that elaborate on some of the data and themes from Dr. Dharmaraj's piece. GCSRW published a three-part series:
"Women by the Numbers: Who is At the Decision-Making Table?" provides an overview of women's representation at General Conference
"Women by the Numbers: Who from the Central Conferences Is at the Decision-Making Table?" provides the data for Central Conferences delegates
"Women by the Numbers: Who from the Jurisdictions Is at the Decision-Making Table?" provides the data for delegates from the US Jurisdictions
"Women by the Numbers: Who is At the Decision-Making Table?" provides an overview of women's representation at General Conference
"Women by the Numbers: Who from the Central Conferences Is at the Decision-Making Table?" provides the data for Central Conferences delegates
"Women by the Numbers: Who from the Jurisdictions Is at the Decision-Making Table?" provides the data for delegates from the US Jurisdictions
Thursday, April 14, 2016
The hermeneutical burden of understanding Vital Congregations data
Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Assistant Professor of Religion and Pieper Chair of Servant Leadership at Ripon College.
A few weeks ago, the 2014 data report for The United Methodist Church's Vital Congregations metrics was released. The report, which summarizes data on five "markers of vitality" for UMC congregations in the US only, contained mixed results. There was an increase in participation in small groups, mission, and mission giving by church members, but declines in new faith professions and membership growth. In other words, American United Methodists were fewer but more faithful.
Numbers, however, do not speak for themselves, contrary to the popular saying. Thus, there have been a variety of attempts to interpret the numbers and discern what they say about where the denomination is, where it is going, and how those realities compares to organizational and theological ideals. The 2014 Vitality Report begins with such an interpretive statement: "Highly vital congregations are focused on growing their vitality by making and maturing disciples, not achieving numbers." This statement is both descriptive and normative, encouraging churches to focus on faithfulness and not worry as much about the numbers.
Other have worried about the numbers, at least on the aggregate level for the American branch of denomination as a whole. Dr. Don House, a lay United Methodist economist, has extrapolated from recent numerical trends to predict "collapse" for the denomination by 2050, as reported in this Good News article. This statement, too, is meant to be not only descriptive but prescriptive. According to House, such collapse is not inevitable if appropriate steps are taken. The implication, then, is that the church must take such steps to avoid an unthinkable fate.
On the other hand, Rev. Amy Valdez Barker, executive secretary of the Connectional Table, in a recent commentary, seeks to de-emphasize the trend of American numerical decline by placing it in the context of varying world-wide membership trends in the UMC. This involves bringing in additional data beyond what is available through the US-centric Vital Congregations metrics. By taking this global perspective and by focusing on mission and ministry, Rev. Valdez Barker provides an implicit answer to a question she raises in the piece, "How do we inspire hope and possibility, rather than allow and contribute to the narrative of fear, crisis and despair?"
In the end, the numbers can be used to describe narratives of hope and narratives of crisis both. Neither is necessarily truer than the other. Numbers are useful, but they cannot, in themselves, answer questions about values and meaning, which can only be answers by people interpreting the numbers.
Moreover, we would do well to remember that there is a danger in relying too much on numbers in our plans. 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 both tell the story of King David arousing God's anger for taking a census of Israel. The prevailing interpretation is that by counting his people, David was placing trust in human rather than divine strength. Whatever we make of United Methodist numerical trends, let us avoid David's mistake and be sure that we are trusting God and not human plans to lead us forward into the future to which God calls us.
A few weeks ago, the 2014 data report for The United Methodist Church's Vital Congregations metrics was released. The report, which summarizes data on five "markers of vitality" for UMC congregations in the US only, contained mixed results. There was an increase in participation in small groups, mission, and mission giving by church members, but declines in new faith professions and membership growth. In other words, American United Methodists were fewer but more faithful.
Numbers, however, do not speak for themselves, contrary to the popular saying. Thus, there have been a variety of attempts to interpret the numbers and discern what they say about where the denomination is, where it is going, and how those realities compares to organizational and theological ideals. The 2014 Vitality Report begins with such an interpretive statement: "Highly vital congregations are focused on growing their vitality by making and maturing disciples, not achieving numbers." This statement is both descriptive and normative, encouraging churches to focus on faithfulness and not worry as much about the numbers.
Other have worried about the numbers, at least on the aggregate level for the American branch of denomination as a whole. Dr. Don House, a lay United Methodist economist, has extrapolated from recent numerical trends to predict "collapse" for the denomination by 2050, as reported in this Good News article. This statement, too, is meant to be not only descriptive but prescriptive. According to House, such collapse is not inevitable if appropriate steps are taken. The implication, then, is that the church must take such steps to avoid an unthinkable fate.
On the other hand, Rev. Amy Valdez Barker, executive secretary of the Connectional Table, in a recent commentary, seeks to de-emphasize the trend of American numerical decline by placing it in the context of varying world-wide membership trends in the UMC. This involves bringing in additional data beyond what is available through the US-centric Vital Congregations metrics. By taking this global perspective and by focusing on mission and ministry, Rev. Valdez Barker provides an implicit answer to a question she raises in the piece, "How do we inspire hope and possibility, rather than allow and contribute to the narrative of fear, crisis and despair?"
In the end, the numbers can be used to describe narratives of hope and narratives of crisis both. Neither is necessarily truer than the other. Numbers are useful, but they cannot, in themselves, answer questions about values and meaning, which can only be answers by people interpreting the numbers.
Moreover, we would do well to remember that there is a danger in relying too much on numbers in our plans. 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21 both tell the story of King David arousing God's anger for taking a census of Israel. The prevailing interpretation is that by counting his people, David was placing trust in human rather than divine strength. Whatever we make of United Methodist numerical trends, let us avoid David's mistake and be sure that we are trusting God and not human plans to lead us forward into the future to which God calls us.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Methodist Theological Education in Africa
Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Assistant Professor of Religion and Pieper Chair of Servant Leadership at Ripon College.
Last month, leaders of African Methodist colleges and universities met in Kenya for a first-ever summit specifically for Methodist higher education in Africa, as reported by UMC Connections. The meeting, termed the First International Conference for Educational Leadership of Methodist Universities and Institutions of Higher Education in Africa, included participants from 15 schools in 10 countries from both United Methodist and autonomous Methodist traditions. Participants shared information and best practices, especially around the issue of fundraising.
This meeting proved to be well timed, coming as it did on the heels of the release of the Global Survey on Theological Education. This survey of Christian theological education across traditions and around the world revealed some interesting facts about the state of theological education, including results specific to Africa. While only a portion of the Methodist higher education provided in Africa is theological education, and while the survey included many more traditions than Methodism, it is nonetheless interesting to compare the survey's results with the conversations of the conference.
The survey found that, while there has been substantial growth in the availability of theological education in Africa, there is still an insufficient supply. 58% of African respondents to the survey indicated that there were either "not enough" or "far too few" schools for theological education. The report projects a nearly 50% growth in the number of theological schools in Africa between 2010 and 2025. Many African institutes of theological education are on shaky financial ground. Just over 50% of African respondents indicated that theological education in Africa was "financially unstable," while an additional nearly 30% said it was in a state of "financial crisis." Despite the financial woes, nearly two thirds of African respondents indicated that theological education in Africa was at least somewhat stable, showing a state of promise.
These findings for theological education across all denominations in Africa mirror well the discussions from the conference about higher education for Methodist denominations in Africa. One of the highlights of the conference was a celebration of the growth of Methodist higher education in Africa since the founding of Africa University 21 years ago. One may expect that growth trend to continue as the demand for higher education of all types continues to grow in Africa. Despite the flourishing of the number of schools, these Methodist colleges and universities are conscious of the funding challenges and therefore are taking steps to ensure that they will be financially stable, as evidenced by the focus on fundraising at the conference. The attention to fundraising can also be seen in such recent stories as the Upper New York Conference campaign to create eight endowed scholarships at Africa University, an initiative that reflect the promise of Methodist higher education in Africa.
Both the report on theological education and the recent conference for Methodist schools of higher education seem to reflect a similar moment for higher education in Africa: one with great potential and great opportunities for growth, constrained somewhat by the need to ensure adequate funding. Despite the financial constraints, though, the next decade or two should be an exciting time for higher education in Africa, and it is exciting to know that United Methodists will be among those involved.
Last month, leaders of African Methodist colleges and universities met in Kenya for a first-ever summit specifically for Methodist higher education in Africa, as reported by UMC Connections. The meeting, termed the First International Conference for Educational Leadership of Methodist Universities and Institutions of Higher Education in Africa, included participants from 15 schools in 10 countries from both United Methodist and autonomous Methodist traditions. Participants shared information and best practices, especially around the issue of fundraising.
This meeting proved to be well timed, coming as it did on the heels of the release of the Global Survey on Theological Education. This survey of Christian theological education across traditions and around the world revealed some interesting facts about the state of theological education, including results specific to Africa. While only a portion of the Methodist higher education provided in Africa is theological education, and while the survey included many more traditions than Methodism, it is nonetheless interesting to compare the survey's results with the conversations of the conference.
The survey found that, while there has been substantial growth in the availability of theological education in Africa, there is still an insufficient supply. 58% of African respondents to the survey indicated that there were either "not enough" or "far too few" schools for theological education. The report projects a nearly 50% growth in the number of theological schools in Africa between 2010 and 2025. Many African institutes of theological education are on shaky financial ground. Just over 50% of African respondents indicated that theological education in Africa was "financially unstable," while an additional nearly 30% said it was in a state of "financial crisis." Despite the financial woes, nearly two thirds of African respondents indicated that theological education in Africa was at least somewhat stable, showing a state of promise.
These findings for theological education across all denominations in Africa mirror well the discussions from the conference about higher education for Methodist denominations in Africa. One of the highlights of the conference was a celebration of the growth of Methodist higher education in Africa since the founding of Africa University 21 years ago. One may expect that growth trend to continue as the demand for higher education of all types continues to grow in Africa. Despite the flourishing of the number of schools, these Methodist colleges and universities are conscious of the funding challenges and therefore are taking steps to ensure that they will be financially stable, as evidenced by the focus on fundraising at the conference. The attention to fundraising can also be seen in such recent stories as the Upper New York Conference campaign to create eight endowed scholarships at Africa University, an initiative that reflect the promise of Methodist higher education in Africa.
Both the report on theological education and the recent conference for Methodist schools of higher education seem to reflect a similar moment for higher education in Africa: one with great potential and great opportunities for growth, constrained somewhat by the need to ensure adequate funding. Despite the financial constraints, though, the next decade or two should be an exciting time for higher education in Africa, and it is exciting to know that United Methodists will be among those involved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)