Just over 10% of the #UMC upholds the Discipline
Update 4/24/2015: I erroneously added a decimal point to a very critical number. I’ve corrected it below…thanks to Chris Walters for seeing it. Very embarrassing. I apologize and am thankful for a community that holds me accountable.
The following is an entry in the Big Data and the UMC series: how data can help disrupt false narratives in the Church.
The United Methodist Church is a representative democratic institution, meaning that ~1000 delegates from the regions of United Methodism meet every four years to vote on its doctrine and polity. If 501 out of 1000 delegates choose something, it becomes our law for 4 years. The next General Conference is in May 2016 in Portland, Oregon.
While the UMC is not really representative or democratic, it tries to be, and that means that they need to have some way of allocating decision-making ability. When it comes to this General Conference, there’s only one number that matters: membership.
The number of church members in the regions of United Methodism gives the proportional number of votes at General Conference, and thus power in the United Methodist Church. For 2016, a populous conference like Oklahoma gets 14 votes split between clergy and laity, whereas a smaller conference like Oregon-Idaho gets 2 votes. Like the House of Representatives in the U.S. Congress, population determines number of votes.
So a question: What if it was revealed in the 2010 census that Oklahoma (the state) artificially inflated its population so it would retain more members in Congress? That would be scandalous, right?
But what happens when the numbers don’t add up…in the Church?
When a member of a church becomes inactive, what happens to their membership? While the pastor can reach out, while friends can try to connect, while people can try to determine if they moved away, there’s only TWO ways to remove them from church membership:
- Self-removal by written notice from the member, or
- Vote of the yearly gathering of a local church community (a charge conference).
A membership audit, held yearly by the Discipline (¶231), helps churches of any size maintain their membership roles and deal with inactive members by removing them by charge conference action.
I grouse about these reports because in my local church, we’d be seen as vital if it weren’t for removing members by Charge Conference action. We take in just a few less members than we lose to death or removal by charge conference. Our new members bring new life and excitement, and overall our participation in small groups is huge, our worship attendance is up…but to the bean counters of General Conference, all that matters is the number of actual members.
You see, my congregation follows the Discipline and we remove members every year via charge conference action as a direct result of an annual membership audit. Doesn’t everyone else do this, uphold the Discipline?
…By Only 11% of Methodism
It turns 89% of the churches each year do not follow the Discipline and have a membership audit.
In 2013, the last year which we have the data, out of 32,608 churches, only 3,847 removed people by Charge Conference action. Just over 11% of the church had a charge conference membership audit. Eleven percent!
Let’s be charitable: I’ve heard of some district superintendents requiring them every five years. Okay, over-estimating that each one is a different church, 20,952 of the 32,608 churches had at least one person removed by charge conference action in the last five years. That’s 65% of United Methodism over five years…and we’ll soon hit less than half.
The numbers are in a perfect slide down. Remember these are churches that reported at least ONE member removed by charge conference action that year.
- 2009: 4,480 churches
- 2010: 4,319 churches
- 2011: 4,232 churches
- 2012: 4,074 churches
- 2013: 3,847 churches
In a church that is already bleeding members, the Discipline-mandated practice of maintaining membership rolls is no longer being practiced in large, large swaths of United Methodism. Indeed, out of the Top 100 churches, only 11 in 2013 had removed anyone by charge conference. Really, out of thousands of worshippers, 89 megachurches didn’t have anyone drop off the rolls?
There’s something fishy here.
The lack of incentive to uphold the Covenant
The problem is that membership matters when it comes to allocating power by General Conference. So it is in a region’s best interest to not do membership audits. I heard of a DS who encouraged a church to not report so many deaths in one year as it would negatively impact their numbers and they should hold off reporting some until the following year–even though they were dead now.
The structure of the UMC rewards membership. The polity of the UMC requires accountability and accuracy in membership numbers, but there’s no institutional inclination to do this. In fact, the opposite is true: doing robust membership accounting is both time-consuming and always–always–results in membership loss. This may not be a mass conspiracy so much as benign neglect, hoping that being lax on enforcement will benefit the area rather than hurt it.
However, it is a massive problem when only 11% of United Methodist churches do membership audits each year and have removed anyone from the rolls over the past five years. In our increasing mobile and aging population, it’s inconceivable that more churches are not losing members in this way. And if entire regions are holding onto inactive rolls and receive a boost in their representation at General Conference–well, that’s a huge issue!
What to do:
- Local churches should ensure their Membership Secretary (¶234) is doing their job and do intentional work on your membership list…every year.
- Bishops must hold Cabinets accountable to encourage every church to do a membership audit (¶231). It may reflect numbers you are afraid of, but it will go a long way to encourage honesty in reporting.
- General Agencies who track membership (like maybe GCFA?) should report when a congregation has gone five years without a membership audit. That list would greatly help the above two circles know where to ask.
The numbers will hurt. The congregation memberships will go down.
But that’s not how to think of this: it’s an opportunity for engagement and pastoral care. Whenever my local church gets the list of members who haven’t attended in 3 years, that becomes a pastoral concern and we contact those inactive members to the best of our ability and see what’s going on or if there’s life changes that we can care for. Local churches are not only missing out on a huge way to care for its members, but also on honesty in representation to General Conference
Reset the Church in 2015?
The credibility of General Conference depends on our representative system being accountable and accurate. When representation is based on membership, and annual conferences have no reason to lower their memberships by enforcing charge conference membership audits, then we wonder if General Conference is truly representative. Are there regions of United Methodism that are artificially inflated? Are there megachurches with huge numbers on their lists that haven’t darkened the door in years or a decade?
Maybe 2015 is the year to do a full-scale audit, reset the actuaries, see the real data, and allow the next General Conference to be more representative and accurate. It will hurt for everyone numerically, but it will be more honest, and will help every local church reach out in Christian love to those who have fallen off the rolls.
That sounds like a win-win to me.
“The statistical data included herein were provided at no charge by the General Council on Finance and Administration of The United Methodist Church (GCFA) and may be obtained directly from GCFA, PO Box 340020, Nashville, TN 37203-0029. This data is proprietary and is owned by GCFA and may not be used in any commercial or exploitative way, to make a financial profit, or in a manner that defames the United Methodist denomination or its agencies or organizations. GCFA does not endorse any particular use of the data or accept responsibility for its interpretation or analysis by another.”