Chapter Seventeen - 2012 Stats - Multiple Markers of Vitality Over Time

Chapter Two looked at churches that reported multiple markers of vitality. (http://spreadsheetstories.blogspot.com/2014/04/chapter-two-2012-stats.html) 

This chapter looks at churches that reported multiple markers of vitality for three consecutive years—2010, 2011, 2012. I queried all churches of at least five members that had an increase in worship attendance; at least one profession of faith; children, youth, young adults, and other adults in Christian formation; at least five people in covenant groups; at least ten VBS participants; at least one community outreach ministry; sent at least one person on a mission team; and paid 100% or more of apportionments.  There were were 117 congregations that fell into this category, representing .36% of congregations and 2.4% of  membership. So while for 2012 there were 926 congregations that reported all of these markers, only about 12% of those congregations had maintained this for three consecutive years.

These 117 congregations ranged in average worship attendance from 75 to 5717

The median average worship attendance was 392. (Half the churches had an average attendance less than 392 and half more.)

The mean for worship attendance was 641. (Total worship attendance divided by number of churches.)

These churches combined for an increase in membership of 2.43% and an increase in worship attendance of 5.4%

Combined, these 117 churches accounted for 

• 3.2% of the total number of people in confirmation classes
• 3.1% of the total number of professions of faith
• 4.7% of the total number of people in covenant groups
• 2.7% of the total number of people in Vacation Bible School
• 1.9% of all Sunday School Classes
• 2.8% of all short-term classes
• 2% of all those served by outreach ministries
• 3.5% of all those in Christian Formation

Geographically these churches represented

• 2 Churches in the Western Jurisdiction (.12% of churches in the jurisdiction)
• 44 Churches in the Southeastern Jurisdiction (.39% of churches in the jurisdiction)
• 19 Churches in the North Central Jurisdiction (.28% of churches in the jurisdiction)
• 15 Churches in the Northeastern Jurisdiction (.22% of churches in the jurisdiction)
• 37 Churches in the South Central Jurisdiction (.66% of the churches in the jurisdiction)

In guessing by the name, about 16% of these congregations are served by a lead pastor who is a woman.

I think these numbers indicate how difficult it is to maintain multiple markers of vitality over time. Every jurisdiction had less than 1% of their congregations represented, and 40% of the annual conferences didn't have any churches on the list. Of the twenty-five largest congregations in terms of worship attendance, only three churches are represented. Of the 100 largest congregations in terms of worship attendance, only 14 churches are represented. 

I think these numbers call us to be cautious about reading too much into any particular year of data. While yearly information is important, it also needs to be looked at in context with previous data.

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.

Chapter Sixteen - 2012 Stats - Direct Billing or Apportioned Benefits

Over the past decade many annual conferences have grappled with whether to apportion or direct bill the cost of pension and health benefits to local churches. When these benefits are apportioned then their cost is incorporated into the apportionment formula, which means that some churches actually pay less than what these benefits cost for their appointed staff and other churches pay more. When these items are direct billed, then each church pays the actual cost for their appointed staff. I thought it would be interesting to see if anything popped out when we looked at those that reported direct billing and those that did not.

Of congregations with at least five members:

• 14,624 congregations (45%) reported direct-billing of both pension benefits and health benefits 

• 9,591 congregations (30%) reported neither direct-billed pension benefits nor health benefits (We can assume both were apportioned)

• 6,686 congregations (20%) reported direct-billed pension benefits but not health benefits  (We can assume health benefits were apportioned)

• 1,539 congregations (5%) reported direct-billed health benefits but not pension benefits  (Not sure what assumptions to make about these congregations, as they represent a variety of annual conferences.)

Those congregations that reported both direct-billed health and pension benefits paid 88.01% of their apportionments and reported 8.75% of their expenditures went to apportionments.

Those congregations that reported neither direct-billed health and pension benefits paid 84.71% of their apportionments and reported 10.75% of their expenditures went to apportionments.

Those congregations that reported direct-billed pension benefits but not health benefits paid 86.05% of their apportionments and reported 10.71% of their expenditures went to apportionments.

Those congregations that reported direct-billed health benefits but not pension benefits paid 86.59% of their apportionments and reported 11.16% of their expenditures went to apportionments.

(Note: The reported percentage of apportionments paid to  expenses includes both district and annual conference apportionments)

Here are a couple of questions these numbers raise for me.

• Do congregations that are direct-billed feel better about the connectional church since their apportionments are a lower percentage of total expenditures?

• Do congregations that pay health and pension benefits as part of apportionments have a clear understanding of the actual cost of staff?

• What would happen if health and pension benefits were all direct-billed, and each church was asked to tithe 10% of their income to the connectional ministries? (Currently the total for all churches over 5 members is 9.19% of congregational expenditures go towards apportionments.)

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.

Chapter Fifteen - 2012 Stats - Slicing the Cost of Staff

The last chapter looked at how congregations spent their money. Some were surprised at how much was spent on staff. If you are like me, 2.8 billion dollars is a bigger amount than I can get my head around. This chapter tries to break those figures down into a more imaginable number by looking at the relationship between the number of worshippers and staff costs, sliced in a variety of ways.

For all United Methodist congregations with at least five members, the average cost of staff per worshipper per week is $16.37. In other words, if each Sunday every person in worship put $16.37 in the offering plate, it would cover most of the cost of local church lay and clergy staff. (I qualify that with "most" because that doesn't include the costs of insurance and pension for those annual conferences that apportion rather than direct bill these costs.)

I thought it might be interesting to see if the staff costs seemed to vary based on average worship attendance. Here is what I discovered. As in the example above, this is the amount that every person attending a worship service would need to put in the offering, every time they attended worship, to cover the most of the the costs of the congregation's staff.

• Churches with an average worship attendance of 50 or less have an average staff cost of $14.60 per worshipper per week.

• Churches with an average worship attendance of 51 to 100  have an average staff cost of $17.65  per worshipper per week.

• Churches with an average worship attendance of 101 to 200  have an average staff cost of $18.85  per worshipper per week.

• Churches with an average worship attendance of 201 to 300  have an average staff cost of $19.00  per worshipper per week.

• Churches with an average worship attendance of 301 to 400  have an average staff cost of $19.77  per worshipper per week.

• Churches with an average worship attendance of 401 to 500  have an average staff cost of $19.80  per worshipper per week.

• Churches with an average worship attendance of 501 to 1000  have an average staff cost of $19.97  per worshipper per week.

• Churches with an average worship attendance of  1001-1500  have an average staff cost of $20.43 per worshipper per week.

• Churches with an average worship attendance of more than  1500  have an average staff cost of $17.82 per worshipper per week.

I then decided to see if there were any obvious differences based on region.

• Churches in the Southeastern Jurisdiction have an average staff cost of $15.27 per worshipper per week.

• Churches in the North Central Jurisdiction have an average staff cost of $16.14 per worshipper per week.

• Churches in the South Central Jurisdiction have an average staff cost of $16.42 per worshipper per week.

• Churches in the Northeastern Jurisdiction have an average staff cost of $16.97 per worshipper per week.

• Churches in the Western Jurisdiction have an average staff cost of $22.09 per worshipper per week.

I also did a slice based on the ethnic majority in the congregation. 

• Churches that are predominantly Asian American  have an average staff cost of $17.53 per worshipper per week.

• Churches that are predominantly Euro  American  have an average staff cost of $16.68 per worshipper per week.

• Churches that are predominantly African American  have an average staff cost of $13.23 per worshipper per week.

• Churches that are predominantly Pacific Islander  have an average staff cost of $13.04 per worshipper per week.

• Churches that are predominantly Hispanic American  have an average staff cost of $11.18 per worshipper per week.

• Churches that are predominantly Native American  have an average staff cost of $7.65 per worshipper per week.

And finally, here is a slice based on total church expenditures

• Churches that have total expenditures of  less than $50,000 per year have an average staff cost of $11.02 per worshipper per week.

• Churches that have total expenditures of between $50,000 and $100,000 per year have an average staff cost of $16.36 per worshipper per week.

• Churches that have total expenditures of between $100,000 and $150,000 per year have an average staff cost of $19.93 per worshipper per week.

• Churches that have total expenditures of between $150,000 and $200,000 per year have an average staff cost of $21.45 per worshipper per week.

• Churches that have total expenditures of between $200,000 and $300,000 per year have an average staff cost of $22.66 per worshipper per week.

• Churches that have total expenditures of between $300,000 and $500,000 per year have an average staff cost of $21.45 per worshipper per week.

• Churches that have total expenditures of between $500,000 and $1,000,000 per year have an average staff cost of $22.28 per worshipper per week.

• Churches that have total expenditures of more than $1,000,000 per year have an average staff cost of $23.76 per worshipper per week.

Note: All of these slices are based on churches with at least five members.

These numbers are easier for me to imagine. Here are a couple of things I observed.

• In general, as expenditures increase the amount spent on staff costs increases at a higher rate than the average worship attendance increases.

• There is a pretty big jump in the average staff cost per worshipper between churches with yearly expenditures of less than $50,000 and those with more than $50,000.

I wonder if when worshippers place their offering in the offering plate how they imagine the money gets used?

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.

Chapter Fourteen - 2012 Stats - Where the Money Goes

In the last chapter we looked at the money received by local congregations. This chapter focuses on how the money is spent. 

If you look at the combined expenditures of all churches with at least five members, for every dollar that is spent, approximately:

 • 46 cents is spent on providing local church staff, both clergy and lay.

 • 17 cents is spent on other local church operating expenses.

 • 9 cents is spent on capital expenditures for buildings, improvements, and major equipment purchases.

 • 9 cents is spent on apportionments, both annual conference and district. (It is important to note that some conferences apportion pension and health insurance costs, so that part of apportionment expenditures is actually a local staff cost that is not included in the previously mentioned 46 cents.)

 • 8 cents is spent on debt repayment.

 • 5 cents is spent on  local church program expenses.

 • 4 cents is spent on non-United Methodist benevolent and charitable causes.

 • 2 cents is spent on United Methodist benevolent and charitable causes. (These include Advance Specials, Youth Service Fund, Special Sunday offerings, and so forth.)

If we look a little more deeply at the expenditures for charitable and benevolent causes, for every dollar of local church benevolent spending, approximately:

• 58 cents is given to non- United Methodist benevolent and charitable causes.

• 19 cents is given directly to United Methodist causes.

• 9 cents is spent on local church and community work by the United Methodist Women.

• 6 cents is given to General Advanced Specials.

• 4 cents is spent on United Methodist Men local projects.

• 3 cents is given to  Annual Conference Advance Specials.

• 2 cents is given to World Service Specials.

• two-thirds of a cent is given to One Great Hour of Sharing.

• two-tenths of a cent is given to World Communion Sunday.

• one-tenth of a cent is given to Human Relations.  

• one-tenth of a cent is given to Peace with Justice.  

• one-tenth of a cent is given to Native American Ministries.

• one-tenth of a cent is given to United Methodist Student Day.

• two-hundredths of a cent is given to Youth Service Fund.

So how much do United Methodist congregations spend? Combined they spend about:

 • 2.8 billion dollars for clergy and lay staff.

 • 1.1 billion dollars on other local church operating expenses.

 • 587 million dollars on capital expenditures.

 • 570 million dollars on apportionments.

 • 485 million dollars on debt repayment.

 • 306 million dollars on local church program expenses.

 • 226 million dollars on non-United Methodist benevolent and charitable causes.

 • 166 million dollars on United Methodist benevolent and charitable causes.

I hope these numbers prompt some interesting conversations. Below are a few things that I wonder about.

• I wonder why we give substantially more to non-United Methodist charitable causes than we do to United Methodist ones, particularly when 100% of money given through the Advance goes to the designated projects while often non-UMC charities use significant amounts for administration?

• I wonder how the amount collected from designated special Sundays compares to the amount of money used to publicize them?

• Considering that nearly half of local church spending is for staff, I wonder if those staff are well equipped to provide effective leadership?

• I wonder how many local church leaders have a clear understanding of how the church is spending its money, and what changes is priorities might result if they did?

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.

Chapter Thirteen - 2012 Stats - Where the Money Comes From

In 2012 United Methodist congregations in the U.S. received approximately 5.5 billion dollars for their annual budgets and a little more than a billion dollars of designated giving. For comparison, this is about the same as the combined Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Sierra Leone and Liberia.

If you combine all of the income received for the general budget for churches of at least five members:

• About 45% comes from pledges

• About 43% comes from non-pledging but identified givers

• About 4% comes from unidentified givers

• The rest comes primarily from fundraisers, building use fees, interest and dividends, and other sources

Of the income that is received for designated projects:

• About 47% is a result of capital campaigns

• About 11% is received for directed benevolent giving including Advance Specials

• About 5% comes from connectional and institutional sources outside the church such as grants and equitable salary support

• About 25% comes from memorials, endowments, and bequests

• The rest comes primarily from fundraisers, projects, and other sources.

The ratio of general budget income to designated income is 5.4 to 1. (So for every $1 of designated income there is $5.40 of general budget income.)

I thought it might be interesting to see if there were any differences in these patterns if we looked at it by jurisdiction. You will find the breakout below. I few things that surprised me were:

• The Northeastern Jurisdiction has the lowest percentage of pledgers and the Western Jurisdiction has the highest.

• The Northeastern Jurisdiction has the highest ratio of general budget income to designated income and the North Central Jurisdiction has the lowest.

• The South Central Jurisdiction has the highest percentage of designated income coming from capital campaigns and the Northeastern  Jurisdiction has the lowest.

In the Northeastern Jurisdiction, if you combine all of the income received for the general budget for churches of at least five members:

• About 38% comes from pledges

• About 40% comes from non-pledging but identified givers

• About 7% comes from unidentified givers

• The rest comes primarily from fundraisers, building use fees, interest and dividends, and other sources

Of the income that is received for designated projects:

• About 37% is a result of capital campaigns

• About 13% is received for directed benevolent giving including Advance Specials

• About 5% comes from connectional and institutional sources outside the church such as grants and equitable salary support

• About 34% comes from memorials, endowments, and bequests

• The rest comes primarily from fundraisers, projects, and other sources.

The ratio of general budget income to designated income is 6.7 to 1. (So for every $1 of designated income there is $6.70 of general budget income.)

In the Southeastern Jurisdiction, if you combine all of the income received for the general budget for churches of at least five members:

• About 44% comes from pledges

• About 47% comes from non-pledging but identified givers

• About 4% comes from unidentified givers

• The rest comes primarily from fundraisers, building use fees, interest and dividends, and other sources

Of the income that is received for designated projects:

• About 49% is a result of capital campaigns

• About 11% is received for directed benevolent giving including Advance Specials

• About 4% comes from connectional and institutional sources outside the church such as grants and equitable salary support

• About 22% comes from memorials, endowments, and bequests

• The rest comes primarily from fundraisers, projects, and other sources.

The ratio of general budget income to designated income is 6 to 1. (So for every $1 of designated income there is $6 of general budget income.)

In the Western Jurisdiction, if you combine all of the income received for the general budget for churches of at least five members:

• About 52% comes from pledges

• About 30% comes from non-pledging but identified givers

• About 3% comes from unidentified givers

• The rest comes primarily from fundraisers, building use fees, interest and dividends, and other sources

Of the income that is received for designated projects:

• About 38% is a result of capital campaigns

• About 12% is received for directed benevolent giving including Advance Specials

• About 7% comes from connectional and institutional sources outside the church such as grants and equitable salary support

• About 36% comes from memorials, endowments, and bequests

• The rest comes primarily from fundraisers, projects, and other sources.

The ratio of general budget income to designated income is 5.6 to 1. (So for every $1 of designated income there is $5.60 of general budget income.)

In the South Central Jurisdiction, if you combine all of the income received for the general budget for churches of at least five members:

• About 49% comes from pledges

• About 42% comes from non-pledging but identified givers

• About 3% comes from unidentified givers

• The rest comes primarily from fundraisers, building use fees, interest and dividends, and other sources

Of the income that is received for designated projects:

• About 55% is a result of capital campaigns

• About 8% is received for directed benevolent giving including Advance Specials

• About 4% comes from connectional and institutional sources outside the church such as grants and equitable salary support

• About 19% comes from memorials, endowments, and bequests

• The rest comes primarily from fundraisers, projects, and other sources.

The ratio of general budget income to designated income is 4.7 to 1. (So for every $1 of designated income there is $4.70 of general budget income.)

In the North Central Jurisdiction, if you combine all of the income received for the general budget for churches of at least five members:

• About 46% comes from pledges

• About 43% comes from non-pledging but identified givers

• About 4% comes from unidentified givers

• The rest comes primarily from fundraisers, building use fees, interest and dividends, and other sources

Of the income that is received for designated projects:

• About 44% is a result of capital campaigns

• About 13% is received for directed benevolent giving including Advance Specials

• About 4% comes from connectional and institutional sources outside the church such as grants and equitable salary support

• About 28% comes from memorials, endowments, and bequests

• The rest comes primarily from fundraisers, projects, and other sources.

The ratio of general budget income to designated income is 4.7 to 1. (So for every $1 of designated income there is $4.70 of general budget income.)

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.

Chapter Twelve - 2012 Stats- Baptized Members, Constituents, and Professing Members

Before 1996, baptized children who had not been confirmed were not considered "full members" of the church. Baptized infants and children  were placed on the "preparatory roll." These children were kept on the preparatory membership roll until they were confirmed and received into "full membership." If by age nineteen, they had not been received into full membership, they were moved to the constituency roll. The constituency roll included unbaptized children (including dedicated children) and other people who were not members but for whom the local congregation had pastoral responsibility. The Discipline mandated that the congregation accurately maintain all three rolls. In practice, some churches placed all of their children on their preparatory roll, regardless of whether they were baptized or not.

In 1996, By Water and the Spirit was adopted by General Conference as our official understanding of baptism, clarifying that, "Baptism is the sacrament of initiation and incorporation into the Body of Christ. An infant, child, or adult who is baptized becomes a member of the catholic (universal) Church, of the denomination, and of the local congregation."  Although it took eight more years and a constitutional amendment, by 2004 the Disciplinary language was in place to allow our record keeping to be consistent with our theology of baptism. The definition of membership in The United Methodist Church includes baptized members and professing members. For statistical purposes, church membership numbers are based on the roll of professing members. The church is to keep an accurate membership record of its baptized and professing members. In addition it is to maintain a constituency roll with names and addresses of others for whom it has pastoral responsibility, including unbaptized children. 

However, I think the reported statistics indicate that many pastors and congregations have a muddled understanding of  baptized members, professing members, and constituents. And if our record keeping reflects our theology, then we have many who have an equally muddled understanding of our theology of baptism as articulated in By Water and the Spirit.

Here are a few examples of churches from around the country (one from each jurisdiction) that appear to have very curious numbers:

• A large church in Texas that has 692 children in Christian Formation, has a professing membership of 4191,  baptized 40 people in 2012, has 2280 constituents, but  only has 25 baptized members.  (Hmm — 692 children and no more than 25 have been baptized?)

• A large church in Georgia that has 9245 professing members, 9035 baptized members, baptized 29 people in 2012, has 545 children in Christian Formation, but has 0 constituents. (Hmm — all of the children in the church have been baptized, so none of them are on the constituency roll?)

• A church in Ohio with 227 children in Christian Formation,  5 people in confirmation,   5 professions of faith, but did no baptisms, has no baptized members, and has no constituents. (Hmm – so they have 227 children in Christian Formation who aren't baptized members or constituents?)

• A church in Maryland that has 313 children in Christian Formation, 862 professing members, 316 constituents, baptized 20 people in 2012, had 5 professions of faith, and has zero baptized members. (Hmm – so even if we assume that all 5 of the professions of faith were previously non-baptized, what happened to the other 15 people who were baptized? How can they possibly have no baptized members?)

• A church in Idaho that has 530 professing members, 231 children in Christian formation, 182 constituents, baptized 9 people in 2012, had 15 professions of faith, and has zero baptized members. (Hmm – 231 children, none are baptized, and at most only 182 are constituents? )

I wish these were rare examples, unfortunately it seems to be more the norm. Of congregations with at least five members:

• 46% indicated that they had zero baptized members, even though more than half of those same congregations indicated they had children in Christian Formation. While technically it would be possible for none of those children to be baptized and thus be constituents, it is highly unlikely.

• 27% indicated that they had zero baptized members and zero constituents, even though close to half of those same congregations indicated they had children in Christian Formation. If you have children in Christian Formation then the church has some sort of pastoral responsibility for them. They are either baptized members or they are constituents. 

• 35% indicated they had zero constituents, even though more than half of those same congregations indicated that they had children in Christian Formation. In order for that to be possible, every child would need to be baptized and they would have no other non professing members who participate in the life of the congregation.

• 6% indicated that they had fewer baptized members than they had number of baptisms in 2012 minus professions of faith in 2012. Even if you assume that every single profession of faith in these churches was made by people not previously baptized (their professions of faith and baptisms occurring at the same time, moving them from constituents to professing members) there would still be "left-over" (poor choice of words) baptized members. The only way for that to be mathematically possible is if there are lots of baptisms being performed for children not living in the community. In these cases the pastor is responsible for seeing that the children are added as baptized members in the community where they actually live.

I think that underlying these baffling numbers is something more significant than just sloppy record keeping. Here are some things I wonder about:

• How can we "seek, welcome, and gather people into the body of Christ"  (¶122 Discipline) if we don't claim people as constituents for whom we have some responsibility?

• How would community life change if  clergy and laity more fully integrated our theological understanding of baptism into congregational life?

• What does it indicate about the value we place on children, if even in our most basic record keeping their names are not recorded?

• How many of our laity can clearly articulate the difference between baptized members, professing members, and constituents and how that relates to our baptismal covenant?

• What would congregations discover about their members and their community if they had up-to-date and accurate rolls of baptized members and constituents?

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.

Chapter Eleven - 2012 Stats - Membership Gains Related to VBS and Other Things

This chapter looks in more depth at the ways we gained membership in 2012 and slices and dices in a variety of ways. In various categories we look proportionately at how membership was gained (in congregations that had people participating in VBS, 49% of membership gains were from professions of faith), and we also examine the total numbers in various categories compared to the whole (congregations that had people participating in VBS accounted for 84% of all professions of faith in the UMC).

After looking at several different categories, there were no huge differences that popped out related to how people gained members. Just about anyway you slice it, about half of the new members are gained by profession of faith, a little more than a fourth by transfer from another United Methodist Church, and a little less than a fourth come from another denomination or are restored members. 

However, when you start looking at total numbers, some very interesting things emerge.

• 65% of all congregations have at least one community outreach ministry, and those congregations account for 86% of all professions of faith

• 60% of all congregations have both children and youth in Christian formation, and those congregations account for 90% of all professions of faith

• 55% of all congregations have VBS, and those congregations account for 84% of all professions of faith.

• 54% of all congregations have United Methodist Women, and those congregations account for 71% of all professions of faith

• 30% of all congregations have United Methodist Men, and those congregations account for 48% of all professions of faith

• 26% of all congregations have  confirmation classes, and those congregations account for 67% of all professions of faith

• 26% of all congregations have both United Methodist Men and Women, and those congregations account for 43% of all professions of faith

• 25% of all congregations have a day care ministry, and those congregations account for 58% of all professions of faith

(Note: by subtracting these numbers from 100%, you can calculate the converse of each situation mentioned. So for example, 45% of congregations do not have VBS and they account for 16% of all professions of faith)

It is important to remember that correlation does not imply causation. Just because the total number of professions of faith of congregations with VBS was more than five times the total number of professions of faith in congregations without VBS, does not mean that VBS causes people to profess faith in Christ. These figures do prompt questions. They make be wonder:

• What would happen if the 45% of all congregations that don't have Vacation Bible School teamed with one or more congregations to offer a VBS experience?

• What would happen if the 65% of all congregations that have at least one community outreach ministry added one more outreach ministry in the next year?

• What would happen if the 75% of all congregations that don't have a day care ministry did a community audit to assess the need for day care in their community?

Here are some of the breakouts for some of the statistics listed about. All statistics are based on congregations with at least five members.

Of all reported membership gains in 2012

49% were professions of faith (124,598)

27% were received from other United Methodist Churches (69,051)

20% were received from other denominations (50,023)

5% were restored members (12,443)

Total Number of people: 256115 

32,440 congregations

Membership gains of congregations that had people participating in Vacation Bible School 

49% were professions of faith (104,613)

27% were received from other United Methodist Churches (58,284)

20% were received from other denominations (42,805)

5% were restored members (9868)

Total Number of people: 215570

Total Number of congregations: 17,924

55% of all congregations

84%  of all membership gains in the United Methodist Church

84% of all professions of faith

Membership gains of congregations that had zero people participating in Vacation Bible School 

49% were professions of faith (19,985)

27% were received from other United Methodist Churches (10,767)

18% were received from other denominations (7,218)

6% were restored members (2575)

Total Number of people: 40,545

Total Number of congregations: 14,516

45% of all congregations

16%  of all membership gains in the United Methodist Church

16% of all professions of faith

Membership gains of congregations that had at least one person enrolled in confirmation class

50% were professions of faith (83,280)

26% were received from other United Methodist Churches (42,831)

19% were received from other denominations (32,264)

5% were restored members (7925)

Total Number of people: 166,300

Total Number of congregations: 8390

26% of all congregations

65%  of all membership gains in the United Methodist Church

67% of all professions of faith

Membership gains of congregations that had at no one enrolled in confirmation class

50% were professions of faith (41,318)

26% were received from other United Methodist Churches (26,220)

19% were received from other denominations (17,759)

5% were restored members (4518)

Total Number of people: 90715

Total Number of congregations: 24050

74% of all congregations

35%  of all membership gains in the United Methodist Church

33% of all professions of faith

Membership gains of congregations that had at least one community outreach ministry

49% were professions of faith (107,392)

27% were received from other United Methodist Churches (59,263)

20% were received from other denominations (43,230)

5% were restored members (10,771)

Total Number of people: 220,656

Total Number of congregations: 21,006

65% of all congregations

86%  of all membership gains in the United Methodist Church

86% of all professions of faith

Membership gains of congregations that had no community outreach ministry

49% were professions of faith (17,206)

27% were received from other United Methodist Churches (9788)

20% were received from other denominations (6793)

5% were restored members (1672)

Total Number of people: 35,459

Total Number of congregations: 11,374

35% of all congregations

14%  of all membership gains in the United Methodist Church

14% of all professions of faith

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.

Chapter Ten— 2012 Stats — The Charge Conference Effect and Membership Loss

Chapter Eight  focused on membership loss across the past six years. This chapter looks more in depth at membership losses in 2012. Of particular note is what I call the "charge conference effect." It is distressing  that the statistic that jumps out most prominently is that churches that reported an increase in membership showed that 46% of their membership loss came from deaths and 12% from charge conference removal , and churches that showed no change in membership reported that 60% of their loss came from deaths and 10% from charge conference removal. On the other hand, churches that had decreased in membership between 2011 and 2012 reported that 28% of their membership loss came from deaths and 39% from charge conference removal. 

Rather than being an indicator of church health, a case might be made that an increase in membership is more likely to be an indicator of sloppy membership records. I wonder what would happen, if every church that recorded no change or a membership increase in 2012 was required to do a membership audit and document compliance with Paragraph 228.1 to 228.4 of the Discipline?

If we compare churches that removed at least one person by charge conference action with churches that had zero charge conference removals, we see some interesting numbers related to worship attendance. While churches that removed at least one person by charge conference action had a combined membership loss of nearly 5%, they showed a worship attendance decline of just 1.19%. On the other hand, churches that had zero charge conference removals showed a combined membership increase of .29%, but they showed an even larger decline in worship attendance at –1.36%.

We see the effect even more clearly when looking just at churches that declined in worship attendance. Those churches that declined in worship attendance and had at least one charge conference removal showed a membership decline of 6.13% and worship attendance decline of 7.82%. So their worship attendance was declining at a slightly higher rate than their membership decline. In comparison, churches that declined in worship attendance but had no charge conference removals showed a combined membership decline of only .59% but a worship decline of 11.15%. So the worship attendance was not only declining at a much higher rate than their membership decline, it was declining at a higher rate than those churches that had removed people by charge conference.

Below you will find various ways of looking at the loss of members in 2012. These figures are based on churches of at least five members. I hope they raise interesting questions for you. 

Of all reported membership losses in 2012:

33% were a result of death

32% were removed by charge conference action

14% withdrew 

14% transferred to another United Methodist congregation

8% transferred to another denomination

Total Number: 295,297

Number of Churches: 32440

Membership change from 2011 to 2012: -.91%

Worship attendance change from 2011 to 2012: -1.32%

Membership loss of churches that reported an increase in membership

46% were a result of death

12% were removed by charge conference action

10% withdrew 

20% transferred to another United Methodist congregation

11% transferred to another denomination

Total Number: 71,538

Number of Churches: 11102

Membership change from 2011 to 2012: +3.31%

Worship attendance change from 2011 to 2012: +1.31%

Membership loss of churches that reported a decrease in membership

28% were a result of death

39% were removed by charge conference action

14% withdrew 

12% transferred to another United Methodist congregation

8% transferred to another denomination

Total Number: 216748

Number of Churches: 15053

Membership change from 2011 to 2012: -5.3%

Worship attendance change from 2011 to 2012: -3.86%

Membership loss of churches that reported no change in membership

60% were a result of death

10% were removed by charge conference action

7% withdrew 

15% transferred to another United Methodist congregation

8% transferred to another denomination

Total Number: 6941

Number of Churches: 6285

Membership change from 2011 to 2012: 0%

Worship attendance change from 2011 to 2012: -3.63%

Membership loss of churches that reported at least one person removed by charge conference action

15% were a result of death

62% were removed by charge conference action

10% withdrew 

8% transferred to another United Methodist congregation

5% transferred to another denomination

Total Number: 152113

Number of Churches: 4009

Membership change from 2011 to 2012: -4.96%

Worship attendance change from 2011 to 2012: -1.19%

Membership loss of churches that reported zero charge conference removals

52% were a result of death

0% were removed by charge conference action

16% withdrew 

20% transferred to another United Methodist congregation

12% transferred to another denomination

Total Number: 143114

Number of Churches: 28431

Membership change from 2011 to 2012: +.29%

Worship attendance change from 2011 to 2012: -1.36%

Membership loss of churches that reported an increase in average worship attendance

34% were a result of death

31% were removed by charge conference action

13% withdrew 

14% transferred to another United Methodist congregation

8% transferred to another denomination

Total Number: 106517

Number of Churches: 11274

Membership change from 2011 to 2012: +.55%

Worship attendance change from 2011 to 2012: +10.83%

Membership loss of churches that reported a decrease in average worship attendance

31% were a result of death

33% were removed by charge conference action

13% withdrew 

14% transferred to another United Methodist congregation

9% transferred to another denomination

Total Number: 170631

Number of Churches: 15377

Membership change from 2011 to 2012: -1.91%

Worship attendance change from 2011 to 2012: -10.29%

Membership loss of churches that reported no change in average worship attendance

44% were a result of death

26% were removed by charge conference action

13% withdrew 

11% transferred to another United Methodist congregation

6% transferred to another denomination

Total Number: 18079

Number of Churches: 5789

Membership change from 2011 to 2012: -1.34%

Worship attendance change from 2011 to 2012: 0%

Membership loss of churches that reported an increase in average worship attendance and zero charge conference removals

52% were a result of death

0% were removed by charge conference action

16% withdrew 

20% transferred to another United Methodist congregation

12% transferred to another denomination

Total Number: 51547

Number of Churches: 9770

Membership change from 2011 to 2012: +1.68%

Worship attendance change from 2011 to 2012: +11.94%

Membership loss of churches that reported an increase in average worship attendance and at least one charge conference removal 

16% were a result of death

60% were removed by charge conference action

10% withdrew 

8% transferred to another United Methodist congregation

5% transferred to another denomination

Total Number: 54970

Number of Churches:1504

Membership change from 2011 to 2012: -3.13%

Worship attendance change from 2011 to 2012: +7.74%

Membership loss of churches that reported a decrease in average worship attendance and zero charge conference removals  

50% were a result of death

0% were removed by charge conference action

16% withdrew 

20% transferred to another United Methodist congregation

13% transferred to another denomination

Total Number: 80745

Number of Churches:13211

Membership change from 2011 to 2012: -.59%

Worship attendance change from 2011 to 2012: -11.15%

Membership loss of churches that reported a decrease in average worship attendance and at least one charge conference removal 

14% were a result of death

63% were removed by charge conference action

10% withdrew 

8% transferred to another United Methodist congregation

4% transferred to another denomination

Total Number: 89906

Number of Churches:2166

Membership change from 2011 to 2012: -6.13%

Worship attendance change from 2011 to 2012: -7.82%

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.