ABC Membership Trends

[pastormikejordan]

Hi all--saw this linked from another blog today:

http://video1.washingtontimes.com/belie ... untry.html

From the 2008 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches:
20. American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A., 1,371,278 members, a decrease of 1.82 percent.

Unfortunately, it puts us as the second-highest decrease, after the Episcopal Church.

I wondered if anyone knew the reason for the decline, etc.; especially, I wasn't sure if these figures reflected the PSW pullout. It's cause for concern, at any rate, but it would be less concerning if we knew the losses reflected PSW.

Any thoughts?

Mike

[pastormikejordan]

Oops...actually, it's only the 3rd highest decrease; missed the Presbyterian Church USA. Anyway--wanted to be accurate!

Mike

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Mike I am rather sure that most of that is the PSW exit. But to me that is no real comfort. On the other hand we have picked up some former SBC churches. Primarily in Kentucky.

[David Flick]

[Ed Pettibone]

[jerryl]

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed:

NOTE;

American Baptist News Service (Valley Forge, Pa. 3/19/04)--American Baptist
Churches USA recently has witnessed the fastest growth of any Protestant
denomination, according to a report in the newly-released 2004 Yearbook of
American and Canadian Churches.

With a membership of 1,484,291 as of the end of 2002 (the latest year for
which figures for all denominations were available), American Baptist
Churches USA reported a growth rate of about 3 percent. The increase over
2001 totals (1,442,824) was the second in a row showing significant growth.

And then

From the 2008 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches:
20. American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A., 1,371,278 members, a decrease of 1.82 percent.

Ed: At the most PSW using the 2002 figure accounted for only 56,342 of the loss which totals 113013 and puts us well below 2001

How long can we blow off such decreases with "it is happening to every one' ?

ABC-USA is # 20 in the size of the top 25 Denominations. With five other Baptist groups and 14 denominations other than Baptist ahead of us, can we truthfully maintain the Mainstream title? How long will we stay in the top 25 ?

[Ed Pettibone]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: And Tim if you follow the thread what I have done is respond to you comments where you have offered your own ideologies with no substantive basis. And in your most recent post have you have chosen to attract me rather than deal with the issue of the ABC losing membership. Does that have any thing to do with you having spent a couple years on the national board that created the current quagmire. It also seems to me that some like your self who where born and raised in the South (yes Missouri qualifies) go out of your way to to disassociate from that history.

As to your not wanting to argue about mainline vs mainstream, you are the one who brought it up even after I had acknowledged my error.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Tim I am glad to see that you have unlocked this thread.

May I assume that that when you posted "If we can get away from the fights and the blame game that does with it, the church has a chance of being relevant" that you meant "...goes with it". Those darn spell checkers can get you can't they, like when I posted "...you have chosen to attract me..." rather than attack me.

But then I do not consider that looking for reasons for our failures requires either fighting or placing blame. However as Bruce wrote into the rules for this site "Although pointed exchanges are to be expected, malicious attitudes towards other users will not be tolerated."

And while some of the reasons you have advanced may play a part for our decline, I would say they are more symptomatic of other problems.

I am agreement with you when you say "One of the most refreshing things about the New Baptist Covenant meeting was that we gathered for worship, encouragement, and common mission." But that is nothing new to me our congregations do that every Sunday. I think what was even more refreshing than that was that the huge assemblage was so well ordered and resisted any loud protest when personal ideals may have been stepped on. OF course we had the advantage of knowing it will be a good while until any of us have to deal collectively with any one with whom we may have had a difference.
And it is true that "We quite purposefully did not vote on anything, including theological differences." However I do not know that the structure of the celebration lent it self to any one proposing a vote, and that was I believe due to the wisdom of those who planed the event.

Picking up Tim's statement " IMHO, this is the wave of the future for the church to survive. We need to get back to our roots in cooperation in mission and autonomous local governance. Leaving doctrine to the local church."

Ed: Here Tim, I have a semantics problem. 1. How are you using church in that first sentence ? 2. And how do we cooperate in missions if we have no consensus on what missions might look like, or what missionaries are to do, with out a denomination?
I see some possibility for some solid coordination of mission activity between various of the groups that where gathered in Atlanta, in fact we heard of some that is already occurring. I do not however seeing any of the represented groups melding their mission program into one even in your lifetime. And if doctrine is left to the local church, does that mean that your association would be OK with your church making a decision to take up snake handling. Sure that sounds far out, I meant it that way, because I see a danger in absolute autonomy of the local church leading us to the acceptance of some far out things. And I am not going to Appalachia on a crusade against Snake handling churches any time soon. Unless they happen to be in the ABC of the South. Or they are allowed entry to one of the city regions hundreds of mile away.

I will look forward to that link on the small church from the Hartford Institute.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Haruo]

Thanks, Timothy, I understand the frustration/irritation you felt, and I'm glad you made this choice.

Haruo

[Tim Dahl]

Hey Guys/Gals,

I'm concerned with the declining numbers of believers in the majority of our denominations. I've read this thread with some interest, and I'm curious about something. What is the PSW that I see mentioned. I'm assuming that is is a group (possibly geographic region) of churches that left the ABC. Am I right? Am I wrong? What is it and why did it/they leave?

Thanks,

Tim

[Haruo]

What exactly was the geographical contour of PSW (TM to me sounds neo-Hindu)? Southern California, I know (northern California was in ABC of the West, which I think maybe has also changed its name). Hawai'i? Arizona? Where else?

Haruo
who should know this stuff the way he knows the capitals of Africa

[Tim Dahl]

[Tim Dahl]

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of dropping the name Baptist either. Usually, it seems to be done as a means to not offend someone. I would rather act like Jesus, and give the name Baptist some polish and shine. Wouldn't it be great if "Baptist" was linked with "Jesus loving, and Neighbor loving," instead of divisiveness, mean spiritedness, and extremism? I think so.

Tim

[mattreal]

[mattreal]

I think that the reason why they changed the name was to avoid being lumped in with the rest of the ABC. We have at least one church planter who is a passionate fan of GHC, but would not be willing to join ABCUSA. The distinction, which may be just semantic, seems to keep some comfortably safe from some of the divisive denominational issues. In addition, I think the leadership is hoping to build relationships outside ABC and keep the mission of reaching people for Jesus out front and denominationalism somewhere behind. I know from personal conversations with Paul Borden, our exec, that he wants to keep out of the denominational conflicts and keep focused on the mission of creating reproducing churches that reach ever greater numbers of unchurched people for Jesus.

I happen to be mildly in agreement with keeping Baptist in the name of churches and regions. A consultant suggested we change the name of our church somewhere down the line. It wouldn't be that big a deal to the congregation; we originally started as North Vallejo Community Church 43 years ago. Yet, I think that Gen X is in opposition to its Boomer parents and is going to be looking for a faith community more than 20 minutes old, with the Boomer generation Community church of this or that. But I could be wrong. And if it will help us toward our vision- Building Relationships for Jesus- I am willing to jettison having Baptist on our letterhead.

Having said all that, and at risk of even greater thread wandering, the pastors meetings in the region are radically different from other pastoral gatherings I have attended. At many pastoral gatherings I have attended there is a general commiseration of the state of the church and the world and an often unstated feeling that we are helpless before demographic and cultural trends, and that our churches are destined to become smaller and less relevant to the people in our community. In GHC Pastors clusters, there are intellectually rigorous and challenging teaching that is coupled with accountability in putting into play the best practices as we interpret them in the variety of communities we serve. What might work in the more rural central valley of california may not in my suburban bay area local- but being exposed to churches that have successfully solved some of the barriers to reaching people for Christ in their locale is both encouraging and stimulating my thinking for our community. We are blessed to have some of the best teachers and practicioners in our region who chose to invest in leading other pastors. Anyway, enough commercial for my region. But I do think it is a model that others would do well to take a look at and not dismiss at a distance.

Matt