a pc(usa) snapshhot€¦ · 2015) to have a household income of $195,000 or more (figure 6). since...
TRANSCRIPT
WHHEN W
Figure 1:
WE GA P
: Frequently
GATHPC(US
Occurring W
HER SA) Sn
Words in Par
AT Tnapsh
rticipants’ Su
THE Thot
uggested Ma
TAB
antras
BLE
A
u
W
cios
bin
Areas of Inv
This workused ultimatel
What
What indivi
What
What
On wof opi
Who Particip
Because tcongregationsmmigrant fel
of Presbyteriasuch, we cann
Findings fbeen taken fron the study re
Exception
AgroupCommsough2015, convetalenteto gath
•
•
•
Th21st CAnothhttp://
C
CreportCOGA
vestigation
k originally soly focused on
does it mean
is the churchidual congreg
is the church
is central to o
what things doinions?
pated
this project ins, seminaries, lowships]) w
ans was not fenot calculate a
from the resulom a (random)eveals that the
ns are noted in
Across the Pres are discerni
mittee on the Oht to understan
COGA cameersations and ted people of ther these con
Open to an
Open-ende
Open to wh
his report is thCentury,” can her report, “C/www.pcusa.o
OGA offers i
OGA commet is provided bA sought.
Stud
ought to explon these:
n to be part of
h better equippgations and m
h called to be
our shared ide
o we achieve
nvited the inpumid councilsithin a short t
easible. Insteaa response rat
lting convenie) probability s sample some
n the Demogr
sbyterian Chuing together wOffice of the nd the currente to an understheir insights the Presbyteriversations. Th
nyone who wi
ed questions w
herever the da
he results of tbe found at hoding Instrumorg/resource/c
it to the PC(U
entary of our fby Research S
FAMILY
dy Design
ore several ge
f this denomin
ped to do as amid council off
and do in the
entity, and ho
a strong con
ut of any and s, and varioustimeframe, crad, a conveniee.
ence sample wsample. Howeewhat matches
raphics sectio
urch (U.S.A.)who we are asGeneral Asset nature of oustanding that itogether for tian Mission Ahe key goals
ished to partic
with no preset
ata lead
the gathered dhttp://www.pcment for PC(Ucoding-instru
USA) as a port
findings is prServices in th
Y PORTR
and Imple
eneral researc
nation? How i
a national denfices?
context of 21
ow do we exp
nsensus, and o
all people ans affiliated groeating a probence sample (
will not be as gever, an analys the known d
on, which follo
), congregatios a church andembly (COGAur ecclesiologyit would be vathe benefit ofAgency Reseaof the proces
cipate
t list of answe
data. The fullcusa.org/resouUSA) Identityument-pcusa-i
trait of who w
esented with heir work in co
RAIT
ementatio
ch questions, t
important is t
nomination th
1st-century A
press it?
on what thin
nd entities of toups [e.g. Newability sampl(that is—a sam
generalizable ysis of the demdemographics
ows.
ons, mid cound who God isA) has also eny, the theologaluable to atte
f the whole charch Services s were:
ers
l report, “Finaurce/final-rep
y Survey Dateidentity-surve
we, the PC(US
“shaded” bacollecting and
n
though the in
that to Presbyt
hat it could no
American cultu
ngs do we hav
the PC(USA)w Worshipingle to ensure a mple of volun
as findings wmographics of s of Presbyteri
ncils, and othe calling us to ngaged in thisgy of church. empt to bringhurch. COGAand develope
al Report: Theport-church-2e” can be founey/.
SA), see ours
ckground. Allanalyzing the
nstrument that
terians, and w
t do as well a
ure?
ve a broad di
(individuals,g Communitierepresentativ
nteers) was us
would be if thef those who paians as a whol
er interested be. The
s discussion aIn the summe
g these many A worked withed an instrum
e Church in th21st-century. nd at
selves to be.
l other text ine data which
t was
why?
as
versity
, es,
ve group sed. As
ey had articipated le.
as it er of
h the ment
he
n the
Demographics
Length of Membership: Because we were specifically interested in hearing from PC(USA) members, we asked, “Are you a member of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)?” Participants were presented with four different response options:
• Yes, I am a member of the PC(USA).
• Yes, I consider myself Presbyterian but don’t identify with any particular denomination.
• No, I belong to another Presbyterian denomination.
• No, I’m not Presbyterian.
If participants answered “no” to this question, they were sent to an exit screen where they were thanked for their participation and were asked no other questions. Of the 3,427 who answered this question affirmatively, 98 percent said they are members of the PC(USA) and 2 percent said they consider themselves Presbyterian but do not identify with any particular Presbyterian denomination. About half (55 percent) of the participants were raised in the denomination. Those who joined or converted to the PC(USA) average 24 years with the denomination, with a range of 1–71 years.
Role: Participants were asked which role(s) they have in the PC(USA) (see Figure 2). Though many participants hold more than one role, a hierarchy was used to show only one role for each.
More than a third (41 percent) of all participants are ruling elders (but not commissioned ruling elders), about a third (34 percent) are commissioned ruling elders or teaching elders, and one fourth (25 percent) are neither (members, 19 percent, and deacons, 6 percent). These proportions are consistent with our expectations for who would be most informed about the denomination and, therefore, more likely to participate in this process. Overall, 16 percent of the participants serve as a pastoral leader of one or more congregations, and 18 percent are commissioned ruling elders or teaching elders serving in some other capacity.
Those who checked “teaching elder” or “commissioned ruling elder” were asked to select from among fourteen categories to describe their current employment. They were able to check all that apply. Among the 34 percent of the participants who are either commissioned ruling elders or teaching elders:
• 61 percent of teaching elders and 14 percent of CREs serve as a pastoral leader of one or more congregations (16 percent overall)
deacon6%
teaching elder30%
commissioned ruling elder
4%
ruling elder41%
member19%
Figure 2: Participants’ Roles within PC(USA)
• 10 percent of teaching elders and 3 percent of CREs serve as PC(USA) presbytery, synod, or national staff
• 3 percent of teaching elders and 21 percent of CREs serve in a non-pastoral position in one or more congregations
• 5 percent of teaching elders and 3 percent of CREs serve as faculty or staff at a seminary or theological school or other educational institution
• 6 percent of teaching elders and 2 percent of CREs serve as a chaplain in the military, a hospital or other health-care facility, or some other location
• 28 percent of teaching elders and 79 percent of CREs serve in some other way, have positions outside the church, are not currently employed, or are retired
Gender: More than half of the participants (54 percent) are female, and almost half (46 percent) are male. This compares to a 58 percent female/42 percent male PC(USA) ratio for members of PC(USA) congregations, according to the most recently available OGA data (2014).
Age: Three in five participants (61 percent) are over age 55. In comparison, the median age range of Presbyterian members is 56–65, according to 2014 OGA data, which tells us that more than half of Presbyterians are in this age range or older.
• 25 or under: 2 percent
• 26–45: 19 percent
• 46–55: 18 percent
• 56–65: 27 percent
• over 65: 34 percent
Race/Ethnicity: Ninety-five percent of participants self-identify as White or Caucasian; in addition, 2 percent identify as Hispanic, Latino/a, or Spanish origin, and 2 percent as Black or African American. Few participants identify with other racial ethnic groups (1 percent Asian, 1 percent multiracial, and less than 1 percent Middle Eastern or Native American). White or Caucasian participants are slightly overrepresented compared to 2014 OGA statistics; Hispanic, Latino/a, or Spanish Origin participants are similar in proportion to 2014 OGA statistics, as are Middle Eastern and Native American participants. Black or African American participants are slightly underrepresented, as are Asian or Pacific Islander participants.
Region: Teaching elders were then asked to which presbytery they belong; all others were asked the name, city, and state of their congregation. These data were used to identify the geographic regions in which participants belong (see Figure 3). When a congregation or presbytery name was not listed by participants, we used the location from which they logged in to fill in the instrument to map their state and region. A list of participants by state is also provided in Figure 4, with counts in each state. The darker the color, the more participants who were from that state.
S
Due to rou
outh
unding, percent
50%
Figure
Midwes
Figu
tages do not ad
e 3: Particip
OGA 2014 d
t
ure 4: Partici
dd up to 100 pe
pants’ Regio
data Part
West
ipants’ Locat
rcent
onal Locatio
ticipants
North
tion by State
ons
heast
e
Puerto Ric
co
Educational Level: Compared to the general U.S. public, Presbyterians are more educated and have higher total household incomes. Teaching elders all have graduate degrees, so to compare education, only the participants who are not teaching elders are examined here. Member participants in this study are slightly more educated in comparison to Presbyterian members in general (Figure 5), based on data from the 2016 Presbyterian Panel demographic report.
Figure 5: Participants’ Educational Levels
Participant Members PC(USA) Members
50%
High school diploma or less Associate’s/Bachelor’s degree Graduate degree
Household Income Level: Member participants in the COGA study are slightly less likely than the PC(USA) member population as a whole (again, compared to the profile of the Presbyterian Panel, recruited in 2015) to have a household income of $195,000 or more (Figure 6). Since the income levels of members and teaching elders differ, the comparisons in Figure 5 are restricted to members.
Figure 6: Participants’ Household Incomes
Participant Members PC(USA) Members
20k or less 20k–40k 40k–65k 65k–105k 105k–195k 195k or more
Social and Theological Orientations: Participants were asked, “Would you say that you are more POLITICALLY liberal, conservative, or neutral?” (1–7 scale with 1 as “liberal” and 7 as “conservative”). Then they were asked a similarly worded question to place themselves on a THEOLOGICAL spectrum. See Figure 7.
Liberals and conservatives are both over-represented in this sample, by about the same amount. Social (political) and theological “moderates,” (shown in Figure 7 as “neutral”) on the other hand, are under-represented. This is understandable, as those with a political or theological leaning may have been more vested in providing their opinion on the state of the denomination.
3% 3%
10% 9%
18% 18%
29% 28%27%
25%
13%
17%
tt
ts
Y
cttp
T
In compartheologically theologically
One of thethey belong hsaid “yes” and
Yes
Among thcited was the that they enjoythey referred tpart of the pol
cons
The resPC(USA) wthe future othe respons
F
Theological O
rison to particconservative,conservative,
e first questioas a relationshd 44 percent s
he 1,598 particonnectional y, and the wato the conneclity/governan
servative 35%
neutral 11%
sponse to this we are eager bof the church. ses largely mi
Figure 7: Par
Orientation
cipants in this, and 32 perce, and 35 perce
Is It Impo
ons we asked whip with the Psaid “no” or “
cipants who snature of the
ay that this cotional nature ce theme inste
libe54%
COGA inquiboth to give eWhile our sarrored and ar
rticipants’ So
s study, PC(Uent neutral. Teent neutral.
ortant to B
was whether iPC(USA). Of“I don’t know
said that it is church (Figunnectionalismin terms of acead).
eral %
iry exceeded xpression to t
ampling methe reflective o
ocial and The
USA) membereaching elder
Be Part of
it is importanf the 2,871 pa
w.” Participant
important, theure 8); particum leads to pooccountability
c
ne
all our expecttheir interestsodology allowf the known d
eological Ori
Social
rs are 41percers are 45 perc
f the PC(U
nt to participanarticipants ansts were also a
e most frequeularly the sensoled resourcestructures or
conservative29%
eutral9%
tations. It sees and concernwed any who demographics
ientations
Orientation
ent theologicacent theologic
USA)?
nts that any cswering this qasked if they c
ently reportedse of communs for more eff
r discipline, w
lib6
ems evident thns and to parti wished to pas of the churc
ally liberal, 26cally liberal, 2
ongregation tquestion, 56 pcould explain
d reason particnity and frienffective ministwe counted tho
beral 2%
hat within theicipate in shaparticipate to doch as a whole.
6 percent 20 percent
to which percent n further.
cipants ndships try (if ose as
e ping o so, .
Figure 8: Why It’s Important That My Congregation Is PC(USA)
Percentage of Participants Who Answered “Yes”; n = 1,598
Connectional Nature 30%
Identity/Heritage/Tradition 28%
Theology/Reformed Theology 26%
Polity/Governance 23%
Helping the World/My Neighbor 17%
Thinking Church/Educated Leaders 14%
Leadership/Formation 9%
Progressive Values 9%
Inclusive/Welcoming 8%
Ecumenical & Interfaith Relations 5%
Worship Style/Liturgy 4%
Embraces Change 2%
Other 12%
No/Not Sure
It may be surprising that only 56 percent of the participants said yes (34 percent said no; 10 percent didn’t know). It might lead one to wonder if fully a third of Presbyterians are unhappy.
However, we also asked these participants to explain their answers, and when we started analyzing the “No” and “I don’t know/Can’t decide” responses, it became clearer that for many, it’s really the congregation that matters, not the denomination. (Figure 9).
Figure 9: Why It’s NOT Important That My Congregation Is PC(USA)
Percentage of Participants Who Answered “No” or “I Don't Know”; n = 1,273
Denomination Not That Important 62%
PC(USA) Turned from Scripture/Too Political 32%
PC(USA) Too Top-Down/Not Engaged 4%
Generally Unhappy 2%
Other 10%
We could divide the 1,273 participants who said “No” or “I don’t know/Can’t decide” into two main groups. The larger group (62 percent of those who said “No” or “I don’t know/Can’t decide”) consists of those for whom it doesn’t really matter to which denomination they belong. Their comments suggest one of two things:
• First, that the denomination isn’t all that important, as long as it’s either
○ Mainline,
○ Reformed,
○ Open to the ordination of women,
○ Progressive,
○ Theologically aligned with their beliefs.
• Second, it wouldn’t matter which denomination they belong to as long as they like their congregation. They pointed to the health and vitality of the congregation as being more important than denominational affiliation.
The smaller group (38 percent) consists of those who seem genuinely unhappy to be part of the PC(USA), citing either that they feel that the denomination
• has lost its way (32 percent say the PC(USA) has turned its back on God, ignored scripture, is too political, or has caved to the secular culture);
• is too top-down and out of touch with congregations (4 percent);
• has changed or cannot be trusted, without being specific (2 percent).
This suggests that the percentage of participants who are unhappy with the denomination can be estimated at 17 percent (38 percent of the 1,273 who answered “no” or “don’t know” is equal to 17 percent of the 2,871 participants answering the question).
Importance of Belonging to PC(USA) by Social and Theological Orientation
There is a significant difference in how participants responded to this question by their social and theological orientation (Table 1). Whereas 74 percent of liberals in this sample (theological and social) say it is important that any congregation they belong to is in relationship with PC(USA), only 29 percent of social conservatives and 33 percent of theological conservatives say the same. Furthermore, more than half of conservatives (59 percent of social conservatives and 55 percent of theological conservatives) state that it is NOT important that they belong to a PC(USA) congregation.
tP
W
op
Yes No I don’t k
Yes No I don’t k
Liberals inthat they belonPC(USA) affi
Why Presbyt
Participanother denominparticipants an
know
know
n this sampleng to PC(USAiliation is imp
W
terian?
nts were then nation, what wnswered this q
Table 1: Orie
libe74%19%8%
libe74%18%9%
are more conA). Conserva
portant to them
What Presb
asked, “If somwould you telquestion.
Figure 10: W
entation by Im
eral % %
% T
eral % %
%
nnected to thetives in this s
m.
byterians V
meone asked ll them?” Res
What Presbyt
mportance of B
Social Orieneu44%42%14%
Theological Or
neu55%33%12%
*D
e denominatiosample, on the
Value abo
you why yousults are show
terians Value
Belonging to P
entation (n=2,9utral % % % rientation (n=2
utral % % %
Due to rounding, p
on; in generale other hand,
out the PC
u are Presbytewn in the right
e about the P
PC(USA)
911) cons29%59%12%
2,888)
cons33%55%11%
percentages may n
l, it is more imare not as lik
C(USA)
erian rather tht-hand column
PC(USA)
servative % % %
servative % % %
ot add up to 100%
mportant to libkely to say the
han belongingn in Figure 10
berals eir
g to some 0; 3,052
aitpI
t
e
pv
tirt
or
W
“t
Not surpriasked why it’smportance of
thinking abouprevious quesIt’s important
In the motheology is th
About a thelder/teaching
About a fopraying througvoices, and va
Another ftradition as a rmagine not b
research has lthat they were
In the nexopportunities relief/assistan
What PC(US
We also a“What does ththe denominat
These cReformed idessentials ofIndeed, oftethose who re
isingly, the ths important thf these themesut their congrestion, shown o
to note that m
st frequently e main reason
hird (29 perceg elder balanc
fourth (24 percgh a discernmaluing intellig
fourth (23 perreason why theing Presbyteed them to vae ordained as
xt largest catefor participance.
SA) Does Wel
asked participhe church alretion (Figure 1
omments sugdentity. Beingf our faith to ten the attachmesponded.
hemes found ihat their congs (based on thegation to themon the left, wimany of the p
appearing then (or one of th
ent) say that oce, the Presby
cent) cited thement process wgence and edu
rcent) mentionhey are Presberian. For othalue the rich hPC(USA) mi
gory, 17 percnts to help oth
ll
ants to imagineady have/do 11).
ggest that respg part of a comthe structure o
ment is one tha
in these respogregation be ahe number of mselves (Figuith the orderinparticipants of
eme from resphe main reason
one of the reayterian Constit
e fact that wewhen faced wucation, espec
ned somethinyterian. For mers who may
history of the inisters and ha
cent said they hers, through
ne the Presbythat fits your
pondents, intemmunity that of a youth proat words cann
onses closely ssociated withpeople who gure 10 compang of the top tffered multipl
ponses to thisns) they are P
asons is politytution, and th
e are a thinkinwith difficult dcially when it
g about persomany, it goes be newer to tPresbyterian ave made a hi
appreciate thadvocacy, mi
yterian Churchr ideal?” as an
ellectually andwrestles toge
ogram is a tienot capture, bu
mirror those th the denomigave similar rares the rank othemes from le reasons.
s question (41Presbyterian.
y. Participantshe clear proce
ng church: beidecisions, bein
comes to hav
onal or denomso far back in
the denominatradition. Anistoric comm
hat the churchission work, e
h (U.S.A.) in nother way to
d emotionallyether to makee that binds reut that is a de
of the previouination. Howeresponses) shiordering of ththis question,
1 percent), par
s especially vasses for decis
ing intentionang open to lisving highly ed
minational iden their familyation, some pend for a few o
mitment to the
h helps others evangelism, a
its ideal form understand w
y, place a highe decisions ranespondents to efining part of
us question, wever, the relatifts as they m
he top themes, shown on th
rticipants said
alue the rulingsion making.
al about thinkstening to diffducated clergy
entity, heritagy history they ersonal explothers, it simpdenomination
and/or proviand/or disaste
m, and then aswhat they valu
h value on ounging from thour denomin
f the identity
which tive
move from s from the he right).
d that the
g
king and ferent y.
e, or cannot ration or ly means n.
des er
sked, ue about
ur he nation.
of
Figure 11: What the Church Already Has/Does That Fits My Ideal
Percentage of Participants, n = 2,740
Helping others 36%
Polity 24%
Helping the denomination 21%
Thinking church 21%
Inclusive and welcoming 19%
Theology 16%
Community and connectionalism 14%
Negative comments about the PC(USA) 12%
Maintain heritage/tradition 4%
Promote progressive values 3%
Ecumenical and interfaith partnerships 3%
Other 8%
This way of thinking of the PC(USA) influenced participants to think more about actions than about heritage, polity, or theology (except when they mentioned how theology motivates action).
The number one theme, coming from responses provided by 36 percent of the participants, was helping others, and includes: mission, advocacy, disaster, evangelism, and having a strong national voice on issues important to the public. So, while helping others was only the fifth-highest value in the previous two questions (refer back to Figure 9), it receives the highest mention here.
The second most frequently appearing theme is polity, mentioned by 24 percent of the participants.
This is followed by two themes that are tied in importance, with 21 percent of the participants making a comment about either of these:
The first theme is the way we are able to help ourselves and each other as a denomination. Participants outline four key ways they believe we help the denomination:
• 43 percent of the comments about helping the congregation were regarding how we provide worshiping community support and resources (9 percent of the comments overall);
• 35 percent of the comments about how we help the overall church; (7 percent overall) were about how we support and develop seminaries, pastors and church workers;
• This tied closely with training, leadership development, and spiritual formation of members (34 percent of “helping the denomination” and 7 percent of overall comments);
• Finally, 15 percent of the comments about how we help the church’s members and teaching elders (3 percent overall) regard providing denominational leadership and direction.
The second theme, tied in importance with the way we help the church (21 percent) is the fact that we are a thinking church (i.e., intentional about dialogue and debate, collective discernment, and valuing education and educated pastors).
The belief that we are an inclusive, welcoming church that supports diversity in the church is mentioned by 19 percent of participants.
About 16 percent mention theology as something they value about being PC(USA). Many made mention specifically of the Reformed faith, the Confessions, or aspects of theology that were clearly Reformed; others did not, but gave vague references to theology or shared beliefs.
About Structure: What We Are Better Equipped to Do as a National Denomination than as Individual Congregations, Mid Councils, or Networks
We then asked participants, “What are we better equipped to do as a national denomination that we could not do (or do as well) on our own as congregations, mid councils, or networks?”
The themes that emerged from these responses also closely mirrored those from the previous questions that asked why participants would say they are Presbyterian, and what the church already has/does that fits their ideal, though they appear in a different order once again (Figure 12).
Figure 12: What We Are Better Equipped to Do as a National Denomination Percentage of Participants, n = 2,882
Helping others 59%
Helping the denomination 30%
Community and connectionalism 21%
Negative comments about PC(USA) 15%
Thinking church 14%
Polity 8%
Ecumenical and interfaith partnerships 5%
Inclusive and welcoming 4%
Theology 2%
Promote progressive values 1%
Maintain heritage/tradition 1%
Other 4%
By far, the most frequently occurring theme is “helping others” (59 percent of the participants mentioned this). Many of these responses were generically stated as helping others, helping people, helping a hurting world, and similar statements. We also included in this theme mentions of mission, both local and worldwide, as well as advocacy, being a strong voice for our society, disaster relief and assistance, outreach, and evangelism.
After helping others, the next most frequently occurring theme is “helping the denomination,” with 30 percent of the participants mentioning either denominational leadership, spiritual formation, leadership development, or pastor or worshiping community support.
Community was the third most-mentioned thing that we are better equipped to do as a national denomination, with 21 percent of the participants mentioning either its connectional nature, the people, or the fact that we can accomplish more by pooling resources.
Of course, as suggested earlier, not everyone feels that the national church model is the best way to accomplish the work of the church; 15 percent of participants gave answers that can best be summed up as “little or nothing.” The primary reasons appear to be a belief that the denomination has turned away from scripture/God; that denominational leaders present only the liberal views to the American public, while ignoring the conservative voices; that the organization is too bureaucratic/top down; or too political/involved in politics; and that our consciences are informed by public sentiment/worldly values, rather than by God’s Word.
For the next most-frequent theme: 14 percent of participants say that what we are better equipped to do at the national level is be a “thinking church”: engage in intentional dialogue, share expertise, and discern God’s will together; having these conversations at the national, not just congregational, level. One participant summed up the comments about this theme nicely:
I think how we make decisions as a national denomination is important. Although we don’t always agree, I do always feel the spirit while watching General Assembly meetings moving us forward. I feel if these decisions were each made on [a] congregational level, [it] would leave the motion of the spirit leading the church based off of individual interpretation instead of interpreting as a larger community.
What Changes Are Recommended by Participants?
What the Church Needs to Change
After we asked, “What does the denomination already have/do that fits your ideal?” (results reported above), we followed it with this question: “What does the church need to change in order to reach this ideal?” (See Figure 13.)
Figure 13: What Participants Think the Church Needs to Change
Percentage of Participants, n = 2,675
Focus outward 24%
Focus on/return to scripture, God, and Jesus 19%
Focus inward 17%
Promote reconciliation & allow theological diversity 16%
Streamline and flatten the hierarchy 14%
Steer clear of politics, liberalism, and secular culture 13%
Suggested change to polity 12%
Be more inclusive and welcoming 11%
Think outside the box and be relevant 7%
Be more progressive or liberal 5%
Be in community 5%
Nothing to change and keep it up 4%
General complaints about leadership 3%
Promote ecumenical & interfaith dialogue 2%
Other 9%
Of the themes that emerged from comments on this question, an outward focus is the one that stood out the most, with 24 percent of participants mentioning mission, advocacy, disaster relief/assistance, evangelism, and/or being a strong voice to the public as things they’d like to see happening more in the church.
The second most common theme focuses on faithfulness: to God, to scripture, to Jesus, with 19 percent of the participants mentioning this as a needed change.
This is followed closely by a theme that is more inward in its focus, with 17 percent of participants saying that the church should focus more on spiritual formation, leadership development, pastor support, and worshiping community support.
The next most frequently occurring theme is about reconciliation, with 16 percent of participants asking the church to promote reconciliation within its walls, be more tolerant of theological diversity, discern together what the future should look like, and/or educate one another about different views.
Some of the suggestions (14 percent of participants) concern streamlining what the national church was trying to accomplish, flattening the hierarchal structure, and listening more to congregations, who feel disconnected from the national offices and/or mid councils.
There is also a sizeable number of participants (13 percent) who wish that the PC(USA) would steer clear of politics, liberalism, and secular culture.
What the Church Is Called to Be and Do
We also asked, “What is the church called to be and do in the context of 21st-century American culture?” Although we had hoped that this question would give us some sense of our shared identity as a denomination, many of the 2,763 responses seem to be more prescriptive, somewhat reflecting the responses people gave to the previous question, above, about changes that they would recommend (Figure 14).
Figure 14: What Participants Think the Church Is Called to Be and Do in the 21st Century
Percentage of Participants, n = 2,763
Focus outward 59%
Focus on God/scripture 49%
Inclusive/welcoming/love 27%
Avoid politics/liberalism/secularism 13%
Focus inward 13%
Be creative/relevant 12%
Promote reconciliation/theological diversity 8%
Other 6%
Be more progressive/liberal 5%
Change polity to let congregations leave 4%
Focus on youth 3%
Build community 3%
Ecumenical & interfaith relations 2%
Hold on to traditions 1%
Consequently, the two most frequently appearing themes are once again an outward focus, with 59 percent of the participants mentioning mission, advocacy, disaster, evangelism, and/or being a strong voice to the public as things they’d like to see happening more in the church (and with stronger resolve this time, as only 24 percent had mentioned it in the previous question), and a focus on God/scripture. This featured more prominently too: whereas 19 percent mentioned a focus on God and scripture in the previous question, 49 percent mentioned it here.
Of those who mention this theme, three-quarters (37 percent of all participants) emphasize the need to be biblical (without mentioning anything about the denomination having strayed from the Bible), while one in five contend that we need to get back to the Bible and one in ten say that we need to live Christ-like lives.
Likewise, loving others and being more inclusive and welcoming was lifted as being very important for the church to be and do; 27 percent of the participants mentioned one of these.
t
fl
s
qwsS
ufis
tnrco
Once agaitime, which is
Mentioneformation, leaisted these as
We askedstatements for
Some denthe statemminds, opgood.” Mbe used in
We were nquestion, whewhy they madsnarky, or hurSome people
As we wous as a denomfrom other clun viewing the
statistical anal
Fully 79 ptheir commennot give us enrepresentativecaution shouloverall Presby
The Coasking abouspoke signicase to minwho we arebut an expr
The respmany creatithe passion,of the suggewish to be k
in, avoiding ps about the sam
d by an equaladership deves things to do
Our Sh
d participants r the denomin
nominations hment: “God is pen doors.” Aore than a mo
n a similar wa
not disappoinether they thoude the choicesrtful (which woffered two o
Segm
orked throughmination, we busters of Presbe diversity wilyses to ident
percent of thents on the openough informe of Presbyterd be exerciseyterian memb
ommittee on tut change to aificantly abounistry outside e summoned tressed hope fo
ponse to the qve and though energy, and
estions will beknown and un
politics, liberame as the 13
l number of plopment, pastmore of in th
ared Iden
the followingnation:
have short gustill speaking
Additionally totto, these arey to tell the w
nted; after cleught the words they gave; awe saved and or three.
ments with
h the analyses became awarebyterians. Whithin the PC(Utify the relativ
e participantsen-ended que
mation to be carians overall,
ed when makibership.
he Office of tasking responut the place ofthe church anto be. The relior our future.
question abouhtful responseoutlooks amoe projected on
nderstood.
alism, and bowpercent who
participants is tor support, a
he previous qu
ntity: Sugg
g question, ho
uiding statemeg.” The Unitethe Church ofe their mantra
world what set
aning out thed “mantra” waand after remoincluded as a
hin the PC
of the particie of various clhile these “cluUSA). We refve size of each
s clearly fit instions, and thategorized. K, exceptions aing broad com
the General Andents about cf scripture. Ound to welcomiiance and cen
ut a phrase or es—more tha
ong us. Many n the screen a
wing to the sementioned the
an inward foand worshipinuestion).
gestions fo
oping that we
ents. For exaed Methodist f the Brethrenas. If you cous us apart as a
explanationsas a good wooving the ones separate doc
C(USA) an
ipants’ commlusters of indiusters” are inffer to them as h of these seg
nto one of theheir responsesKeep in mind are noted in thmparisons of
Assembly notecall (what is thur identity as ing love, is a
ntrality of scri
mantra that man a thousand
were similaras a way of in
ecular cultureese themes in
ocus, with 13 png community
or a Guidin
would get a l
ample, the UnChurch also hn has “For thuld imagine aa denominatio
s of why peoprd choice, hos that were cl
cument), there
nd What T
ments, lookingividuals who formal and fluthe four segm
gments (Figur
ese four segms to the demothat, while thhe demograp
f the sizes of e
es that when the church cala scriptural csignificant af
ipture is seen
might expressof them. The
r. Throughoutnformally shar
e was mentionn the previous
percent menty support (tho
ng Statem
long list of po
nited Church has a statemehe glory of Ga mantra for thon, what migh
ple didn’t wanow difficult anlearly intendee were still ab
They Wan
g for the commshare particuuid, their idenments within re 15).
ments, based oographic queshese participa
phics section oeach of these
the instrumenlled to be andchurch, calledffirmation abonot only as a
s our Presbyteese brief phrat the General ring our persp
ned (by 12 pes question).
tioning spirituough 17 perce
ment
otential guidin
of Christ is gent: “Open heGod and my nhe PC(USA) tht that look lik
nt to answer thn exercise thised to be funnybout 2,000 mo
nt
mon threads tular values disntification mathe PC(USA)
on a combinastions; 21 perants are someof this report segments to
nt transitionedd do), the respd by scripture out who we a
a legacy from
erian identity ases variouslyAssembly a npectives on ho
ercent this
ual ent had
ng
guided by earts, open neighbors’ that could ke?
he s was, or y or ottos!
that unite stinct ay aid us ), and ran
ation of rcent did ewhat t, and the
d from pondents
in this are and
m our past
drew capture
number ow we
P
atprwtha
D
at(b(dtim
F
lso
Purposeful P
The largeand would preto gain culturapolitics and inremain hopefuwill see that thtime. Others whelping dissenare teaching e
I woudecisions change ag
Disappointed
Though thabandoned, anthose who eith(2) are conflicbetrayed by re(OGA) and thdenominationthe table; that nvolved in po
male (64 perce
Family Faci
These areiberals and co
sisters in Chriongoing dialo
Progressives
st segment amefer that we nal relevance an social actionul that conserhere are diffewould simply nting congregelders (32 perc
uld like to sealmost apolo
gain sometime
d and Disce
he name givennd for some, hher (1) do notcted and thinkecent decisionhe Presbyterian is hostile tow
the liberals inolitics. Aboutent).
ilitators (15 P
peacemakersonservatives. ist who are diogue that wou
s (35 percent
mong the partnarrow our focand our own sn. They are levatives who arent ways to ibe happy if t
gations to leavcent); most of
e PC(USA) bogetically. I doe in the future
rning (19 Pe
n to this segmheld hostage bt like their PCking about leans made at Gean Mission Agward conservan the denomint one-fifth of t
Percent)
s; those who vThey are genstressed by reld help every
t)
ticipants conscus to claim asocietal nicheess tolerant ofare upset withinterpret scripthe conservative the denomif this segmen
be more cleaon't want to he), own that id
ercent)
ment might apby their deno
C(USA) affiliaaving the denoeneral Assemgency (PMA)atives in genenation treat ththis segment
value our theonerally pleaseecent changes
yone stay in th
ists of those wa more progre. Many in thi
f conservativeh the 221st Gepture, and wilives left the Pination with g
nt are female (
ar and stronghave a schismdentity, and b
ppear to be strmination. Theation but are somination. Th
mbly, by stand) on social issueral. They tenhem disparagiare teaching e
ological diverd with the dens. They look the “family,” w
who are mostessive identitys group feel w
e theologies weneral Assemll choose to st
PC(USA), andgrace and dign(63 percent).
g in what it bm but I think hbe proud of th
rong, it truly rey are the mostuck in the dhis segment i
ds taken by theues, and by th
nd to feel that ingly. They aelders (17 per
rsity and wounomination bto national stawhile also pro
tly pleased wiy both for thewe need to gewithin the den
mbly (2014) detay and accepd a few offerenity. About a
believes. Somhaving a clearhat identity. N
reflects how tost displeaseddenomination s mostly conse Office of thheir perceptiothere is little
argue that the rcent); most o
uld prefer recobut worry aboaff for leadersomoting theol
ith the denomological reaso
et more involvnomination. Secisions on mpt the changesed suggestiona third of this
metimes I feelr identity (eveName it and cl
they feel: forsd. This group
for various reservative, and
he General Ason that the room left fordenomination
of this segmen
onciliation beout their brothship in resourlogical divers
mination ons and ved in ome
marriage s, over s for segment
l it makes en if it will laim it!
saken, includes easons, or d feels ssembly
r them at n is too nt are
etween hers and rcing an ity and
1%
11%
58%
85%
51%
23%
50%
32%
13%
33%
76%
38%
10%
2%
16%
Disappointed andDiscerning
Rooted and Resolute Family Facilitators PurposefulProgressives
Individuals who arenot categorized
Figure 16: Segment by Combined Social and Theological Orientations
Liberal Moderate/mixed Conservative
unity within the denomination. Some are frustrated or angry with their sister and brother congregations who have chosen to leave, seeing it as an “easy way out” or placing undue importance on what they perceive to be secondary issues. This group consists mostly of those who are liberal/progressive. A little fewer than half (42 percent) of this segment are teaching elders; many of this segment are female (53 percent).
Rooted and Resolute (10 Percent)
This group considers their PC(USA) identity to be very important, but feel the denomination has strayed from the Bible and/or gotten too involved in liberal politics. Though unhappy with recent trends, they appear to have no current plans to leave the denomination, preferring to stay and fight for the denomination they believe in. Some believe liberals are merely a vocal minority with disproportionate control of the denomination, and believe that they can convince the denomination to repent and return to the Bible. They tend to prefer a literal reading of scripture and feel that liberals/progressive Presbyterians will see their error and repent, when they are reminded that they’ve turned their backs on God. They tend to think that the denomination should not have diverse theologies, though this group is theologically conservative but socially moderate/mixed. They tend to want to return to an earlier time in which they felt that things were better. About a third of this segment (30 percent) are teaching elders; most of this segment are male (60 percent).
The Unsegmented (21 Percent)
These are the people who do not easily fit in any of the above categories, based on the answers they gave. A little under a third (29 percent) of this segment are teaching elders; most of this segment are female (59 percent).
Figure 16 shows the analyses of the four segments and those we could not fit into one of the four segments, comparing three groups: (1) those who are both socially and theologically liberal, (2) those who are both socially and theologically conservative, and those who are both socially and theologically moderate or are mixed on the social and theological scales. Those who did not provide information on their orientation are omitted from this analysis.
It is clear here that when combining the social and theological orientation scales, the Disappointed and Discerning segment is the most prominently conservative (76 percent), and the Energized and Hopeful seekers of the Common Good segment is the most prominently liberal (85 percent). The Rooted and Resolute segment is more moderate/mixed and conservative (50 percent and 38 percent, respectively), though they are more theologically conservative than socially conservative. The Seekers of the Common Good and Unsegmented are mostly liberal (58 percent and 52 percent, respectively) and moderate/mixed (32 percent and 33 percent, respectively). There does not appear to be much difference between the Unsegmented and the Reconcilers when
cm
o
astt
tadt
as
“maLc
tidprawAw
ntcu
combining socmoderate/mix
Both are mor conservativ
Though thadditional anasee if answersthree groups: theologically
Liberals, cthey are Presbamong those fdenominationthat they have
There wasand that this osupporting the
The disag“helping our nmission and eas a form of raLGBTQ), conconservative t
This projeto consider asndividuals an
denominationpleased at the responded to tanalyzing morwere heard; vAnd we want wonderful ide
Although natural path tothey talked abcame to underunderstanding
These foare meant toCOGA’s hoand the uniq
cial and theolxed members
more liberal sve theological
The C
he four segmealyses to deters to each of th(1) those whoconservative,
conservativesbyterian, and wfor whom bel
nal affiliation ie specific issu
s a general agoutward focuse church and
greement tendneighbor” in tvangelism. Aadical welcom
nservatives tentheologies.
ect sought to p they weigh m
nd groups withn in the 21st ce
overwhelminthis instrumenre than 18,00oices of the cthem to know
eas and even t
we didn’t ento follow whenbout what it mrstand that thegs of scriptura
four “clusters”o give us a deope that the idque witness w
logical orientaas well.
ocially than tlly.
Common D
ents identifiedrmine where t
he questions do are both soc, and (3) those
s, and moderawhy they spelonging to PCin general is s
ues with the PC
greement that s is what we sits leaders, an
ds to lie in whterms of socia
Also, whereas wme and inclusnd to focus on
provide informatters of purhin the PC(Uentury. It is oung number of nt, and many 0 comments,
contented and w that we apptheir frustratio
ter into this pn we were cod
means to be biese different gal interpretatio
” are not meaneeper understadentification owe share in ou
ation; both ar
theologically,
Denomina
d among the sthey do come
differ based oncially and theoe who are bot
ates all agree tcifically valu
C(USA) is notsimply not imC(USA).
“helping ourshould be focund being a bea
hat these goalsal action and when liberals
sion (and are mn more genera
Summar
mation for usrpose, functio
USA) to discerur hope that w
f responses to thanked us fowe believe ththe disconten
preciate their hons.
project intendiding the data iblical, to be igroups withinon, and differ
nt to divide uanding idea ofof these groupur denominatio
re a little over
though they
ator: On W
study participe to some agren liberal/consologically libth socially an
that communue their PC(USt important. L
mportant to the
r neighbor” is using on as a acon of light
s and actions advocacy, cons talk of beingmore likely toal welcome, o
ry Comme
se by commison, mission anrn some consewe have accoma call for a ch
or opening thehat voices of Pnted; voices ohonesty, their
ing to categorand began to
inclusive, or tn the church hrent sets of va
us into theologf what our PCps will assist uon.
r one-half libe
are still more
What We D
pants don’t seeeement. We aservative orieberal, (2) thosed theological
nity, theology,SA) affiliatio
Liberals are mem, whereas c
something thchurch, alongand love in th
actually meannservatives teg a beacon of o specify certor a more spe
ents
ssioners at thend ministry, aensus on whamplished bothhurchwide coe conversatioPresbyteriansof new Presbyr creativity, an
rize Presbyterrealize that p
to follow Jesuhave very diffalues.
gical or ecclesC(USA) familus in seeing a
eral, but with
e liberal theolo
DO Agr
em to agree oalso did someentation. These who are botlly moderate O
, and polity aron. However,
more likely to conservatives
hat we as a deg with being bhe world.
n. Whereas liend to think of light and lovtain marginaliecific goal of w
e 222nd Geneand to provideat we are calleh of these task
onversation: aon to the whols from nearly yterians and lind their willin
rians into segpeople meant us. We began ferent worldv
siological camly portrait looanew the brea
large minorit
ogically then
ee
on much, we de additional anse analyses coth socially anOR who are m
re key reasonthere is a diffsay that s are more lik
enomination dbiblical, nurtu
iberals tend toof it in terms ove, they tend tized groups suwelcoming
eral Assemblye opportunitieed to be and dks. We were v
about 3,427 pele church. Aftevery state an
ifelong Presbyngness to sha
gments, it seemdifferent thinto see pattern
views, differen
mps. Instead, oks like. It is adth of our div
ties of
neutral
did some nalysis to ompare nd mixed.
ns why ference
kely to say
do well, uring and
o think of of to frame it uch as
y (2016) es for do as a very eople
fter nd region yterians.
are their
med a ngs when ns and nt
they
versity
aThe Gene
a national ch
The Cominsight to Re(U.S.A.). If o
We are aWord; to treafor justice. T
There isagencies of tnotes a healtvitality of wicongregation
We are nthe need of th
We knowThough we kwe have a fuconfident vie
COGA agaiPerry Chan
eral Assembhurch that be
mmittee on theesearch Serviceour church was
a blessed and fasure the role o
There is a wides
s an urgent sensthe church—vethy restiveness itness in our nans and our com
not satisfied whe Spirit’s wor
w the limits ofknow that we puture that can gew of God’s ab
in wants to exng from PMA
bly has beforst suits us m
e Office of the Ges. It was clear s only fueled b
fortunate peoplof laity and clespread appreci
se that our effoenerable and emto reform our
ation and arounmmitment to he
with our hospitark that we may
f this self-portrpresently “see dgrow out of the biding Grace to
xpress its thanResearch Ser
re itself a momoving forwa
General Assemin all responsey passion there
le who have a hergy together; thation for Refor
orts must now amerging, as an structures and nd the world. Tlping others.
ality to all Gody become a mor
ait and know, tdimly,” we findstrengths of th
oward the PC(U
nks for partnervices and for
onumental taard, but also
mbly wants to tes that all peope is enough to c
heritage that sthat privileges trmed Theology
address the neeexpression of perhaps even o
There is a comm
’s children bothre diverse peop
too, the ever-chd contained wihe past and be cUSA).
ership with Dr additional in
ask: not only what our id
thank everyoneple care about tcarry us well in
till inspires us tthoughtful discy and how it ha
eds of congregfaithfulness toour Presbyteriamon desire to f
th inside and ouple who feel em
hanging natureithin the responchastened by it
Dr. Deborah Cnsights from D
y to think abodentity shoul
e who gave thotheir Presbyterinto the future.
to be hearers acernment and cas shaped us a
gations, mid couo the Lordship oan culture in sefind ways to su
utside the churmpowered and
e of our churchnses the hope ats errors. We h
Coe, Dr. AngiDr. John Bru
out the strucd be going f
ought, prayer, aian Church
and doers of thecompels us to achurch.
uncils, and of Christ. COGervice to a reneupport healthy
rch and recognd treasured.
h and the worldand convictionhold a high and
ie Andriot, anueggemann.
cture for forward.
and
e act
GA ewed
ize
d. n that d
nd Dr.