Irony & the PCA: Analyzing Growth
Written by David W. Hall |
Thursday, July 27, 2023
There is strength in the PCA. It is not time for a funeral. Instead, it is time for a sober assessment and perhaps some correction of purpose and strategy statements. Considering these dismal performances (if that is one’s assessment), one might ask, “How has the PCA grown?” That answer could be the most positive thing to come from this study. The conclusion is that the PCA has had a strong and consistent growth, numerically and financially from the churches in the under-300 category.
Pastor David W. Hall has given us the first published history of the inaugural 50 years of the Presbyterian Church in America. Single copies are available for purchase from Amazon.com, and discount pricing is available on bulk orders from the author.
Below is an excerpt charting the growth achieved and challenges overcome by the PCA following the joining and receiving of the RPCES.
PCA Church Growth, 1985-1989
Excerpts from a mid-1980s PCA document reflect the guiding principles for the desired PCA growth in the 1980s. The 1984 Assembly approved these purposes for our foreign mission board, which would also become operational for much of our home missions works in the ‘80s: “To reach . . . peoples with God’s Good News through the testimony of church-planting teams . . . Success will be judged by observable church growth.” (Min14GA, 346)
That Assembly heard that the term “observable” in the above purpose statement was to be understood as “that which is describable (possibly measurable) to such an extent that progress toward the accomplishment of our purpose can be compared to previous expectations” (Ibid, 355), and that “church growth” could be understood as “the final test of our ministry. The local body must grow in an observable fashion, qualitatively and quantitatively. We must be able to establish a causal relationship between . . . personnel and church growth.” (Ibid, 356)
Amendments to the package from the floor suggested that it was clear to most of the commissioners at that Assembly that this mission agency had embraced the numerical growth school of thought prevalent at the time. That this was so overt can also be discerned by comparing the final action of that Assembly on this recommendation. Rather than approving that entire recommended package, the Assembly amended this attempt from the floor to read finally: “To reach . . . peoples with God’s Good News through the testimony of church-planting teams . . . Success in observable church growth will be an important means of evaluation” (p. 355).
The Assembly further rejected the exclusively numeric standard of evaluation in these words, which were approved as amendments from the floor: “It is therefore our responsibility both to sow broadly and to reap the whitened fields . . . there may be exceptions, but under such church growth is the normal indicator by which we . . . will evaluate our effectiveness. . . Obedience to the Scriptures is the final test of our ministry. Such obedience will result in God’s blessing, which by the graciousness of our God may often be observed in qualitative and quantitative church growth.” (p. 125)
Thus, this mission purpose statement was diluted away from the total identification of numerical church growth as the observable manifestation of God’s blessing to the admission that such numerical church growth serving, at least as an “indicator” and the expected norm.
Below is a summary of a study to evaluate how well one of the PCA’s leading missions agency, Mission to North America (hereafter MNA), has done according to those criteria. MNA should be grateful to the commissioners who amended the original purpose statement (as should MTW), for these statistics reveal that not only would MNA have failed to reach such standards as proposed initially, but further that numerical church growth in the PCA has not even matched the diminished predictions as amended from the floor. In fact, after 1989, the PCA may be in a non-growth modality for the first time in its young life. If so, it is hoped that the appropriate agencies will hasten to make methodological adjustments to remedy some strategy problems.
Most of the non-repeatable transfer growth from other denominations (chiefly the PCUS) has vanished, and the atypical absorption of the RPCES was history, having been completed in 1982. With no imminent scenario of absorbing the OPC, for the years 1985-1989, the growth of the PCA has been measurable in terms of constants, which before 1985 were in flux. In short, the last 5-6 years had provided the PCA with a typical pattern of growth or slow growth. At the earliest opportunity, key strategists would desire to look at this honestly to make recommendations wisely for the future.
With the unmistakable warning signal of slowing growth, a trend for five years or more would not be ignored, after having proven its trend line. Planners for the future of our denomination will want to give this phenomenon (which hopefully will be reversed) attention sooner rather than later. Stewardship requires that we consider the measurable statistics in the lean years as well as in the fat years. Such “stewardship” measurability factor was given as part of the original justification for the emphasis on measurability. This recent trend line should call the strategists attention.
This study is one such attempt to ask if it is empirically justified for leadership to advocate the imitation of the largest churches within the PCA, as is normally and routinely done. We now have a long enough period to put forth some reliable statistics to compare our measurable growth. Given the available data, one might begin with the most prominent churches and ask: “Have the largest churches in the PCA grown greater than, equal to, or less than the denomination-wide average for the five years 1985-1989 and 1989?
From a comparison of the changes in large and medium-sized churches for the five years, the net number of churches in the 300-900 membership range is mainly unchanged, as is the net number of churches with over 300 members in the whole denomination. The year 1989 and the five-year period (1985-1989) saw little change in the total number of churches in this bracket which could be studied. Thus, the PCA (neither in the one-year nor the five-year slice) is notadding a gross number of churches to the pool as targeted.
Yet the most startling statistic is that the growth rate of the PCA has steadily declined from 5.4% to 5.0% to 4.0% to 2.9%, and most recently to 1.2% in 1989. When asked about the reasons, no one seems prepared to offer the two most likely explanations for such a declining growth rate.
The two most obvious reasons are that (1) one-time bonuses, such as the J&R with the RPCES in 1982 and transfer growth from the PCUS, are non-repeatable, and (2) the top quartile of the membership, contained in these largest churches has performed more poorly than the rest of the church. Without this inhibitor of growth from the top 25%, growth would have otherwise continued in the 5% region. Whatever the other possible reasons, these statistics could either be ignored to our detriment or taken seriously and used as a stimulus for policy adjustments before it is too late.
-
Having the Hard Conversation
Hard conversations are not easy and certainly take thoughtful consideration to be meaningful and effective. Understanding the art and science of having hard conversations begins with the conviction and motivation to have it in the first place.
One of the most common crossroads I encounter when counseling those dealing with anticipating a hard conversation is helping them “want to want” to have the conversation. Of course, I empathize—you would have to be spiritually masochistic to enjoy the possibility of an uncomfortable conversation. Hard conversations range the spectrum from awkward moments to unwelcomed confrontations. However, there is a crossroad of conviction that we must navigate to compel ourselves to pursue something unlovely with genuine love.[1] Let’s consider a few of the compelling reasons and practical considerations for having the hard conversation.
1. We Have a Responsibility to One Another (1 Cor. 12:16; Heb. 3:12-14)
A foundational motivation towards having a hard conversation is a sincere concern about the wellbeing of our brothers and sisters in Christ. The belonging we share in Christ compels our love to move towards those in need of insight or care. These moments are not always welcomed or easy. The difference between immaturity and immorality can be difficult to discern in understanding people and their problems. The motivation to move toward one another is a familial-based motivation moving beyond friendship and collegial niceties. Belonging that is mutually dependent and interrelated is the blessing of the redeemed household of God.
2. We Have the Ability to Live in the Truth (Col. 3:1-4, 16-17; Rom. 12:1-3)
The defining characteristic of the transformational work of the gospel is our ability to live in the truth. Our hearts are prone to deception because of our sin, but the renewing of our minds, according to the Word and the Spirt, brings the capacity to both understand and live in the truth. The recognition of reality is a sobering task, but the gospel reframes and always gives pathways with eternal hope. Living in the truth of the gospel (as applied to the realities of the human experience) does not remove the harsh realities of life. Still, it does categorically and practically give perspective and pathways to living rightly with confidence and hope. Having a hard conversation is not simply addressing hardships but pursuing hope and help to live rightly in the truth.
3. We Have a Calling of Gospel Witness (1 John 4:11-12; John 13:35)
How we live matters. The truth of Scripture is visible not only in the pages of God’s Word but in the actions of our lives. Pursuing one another through the challenges of hard conversations to live rightly before God and others is counter-cultural. When the church displays unity within an immense diversity of cultures, personalities, and life experiences, it proclaims the transforming work of our reconciliation with God and one another. Moving towards one another through hard conversations is motivated not primarily by interpersonal health but the testimony of the gospel.
Read More -
Department of Education to Remove Protections for Religious Campus Groups
Protecting religious expression is vital, not just for Christians, but for everyone. Conscience rights are pre-political rights and provide the foundation on which every other liberty is built.
In February, the U.S. Department of Education announced its intention to rescind the “Free Inquiry Rule,” established in 2020 by then-Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. According to the rule, universities that receive federal funding cannot deny any right, benefit, or privilege to student organizations simply because they are religious in nature. The common-sense rule was designed to fix the increasingly common practice of campus authorities unjustly pressuring and discriminating against religious student groups.
For example, during the 2014-15 academic year, the California State University system withdrew recognition from InterVarsity Christian Fellowship because it required its leaders to hold Christian beliefs. In fact, according to a Christian Legal Society fact sheet, similar incidents occurred at the University of Arizona, University of Northern Colorado, the University of Florida, University of Georgia, Boise State University, University of Illinois, Indiana University, the University of Michigan, and others. One religious organization with multiple chapters was also forced to seek legal counsel regarding its presence at 16 different public colleges and universities in the last four years.
In 2021, a Ratio Christi chapter at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln was denied funding to invite a Christian philosopher for a lecture unless it included “another spokesperson with a different ideological perspective.” In a lawsuit filed by the Alliance Defending Freedom, Ratio Christi argued that the university failed to follow this policy with other groups, but instead spent “hundreds of thousands of dollars in student fees each year to pay for speakers … on topics like sexual orientation, gender identity, reproductive justice, social justice, police reform, and political activism.”
Read More
Related Posts: -
Our Tender Shoots Ravaged by the “Mouse”
Written by C. R. Carmichael |
Thursday, December 29, 2022
America has been uniquely blessed with the opportunity to repent from this sinfulness which is quickly destroying the younger generation of our nation. In fact, we have been commanded by God to raise our children in the training and admonition of the Lord to avoid that great tragedy (Ephesians 6:4). This is why Christians, above all people, should never let up on protecting our precious ones from the field-ravagers of our time with the word of God and the love of Christ in the hope that His grace would save parents and children alike.What exactly is going on with Disney and that cartoon mouse of theirs? This once-heralded icon of family-friendly entertainment was already drifting away from traditional, fairly-moralistic narratives some decades ago, but now they’ve gone completely off the rails and into the ditch of woke ideology that openly promotes moral confusion, subversive sexual concepts, and unbiblical spirituality to impressionable young children.
In recent years, Disney and its subsidiaries have overseen the obligatory inclusion of sexually diverse characters in their storylines for children (Andy Mack, The Owlhouse, Lightyear, etc.), favorable portrayals of satanic and New Age teachings for both children and adults (Pocahontas, Frozen, Little Demon, etc.), and seem more than willing to engage in a culture war against Biblical values in both their entertainment and corporate policy and activities.
Funny how not that long ago Disney was pursuing legal action against neighborhood daycare centers for using copyrighted images of Disney characters on their walls, but don’t seem to have a problem with “Disney-themed” drag shows that try to blur the line between child and adult entertainment. In fact, the company didn’t even bat an eye when a recent “drag” luncheon advertised in North Carolina had a performer, dressed as a Disney character, proudly proclaiming “Satanism” at the intersection of “queer(censored) and blasphemy.”
Who would have guessed that Mickey Mouse might one day abandon his status as a beloved cartoon hero to join with a mischief of common field-mice intent on ravaging the tender shoots of our golden fields of America—namely, the children of our once-promising society?
A Plague of Sin is Destroying Our Youth
To be fair, Mickey isn’t the only one spreading this childhood disease of the soul. These days, many different purveyors of sexual sin and chaos are specifically targeting our children for abuse and ideological recruitment. Ever since the Epstein scandal opened our eyes to this kind of secret horror, the sex trafficking of minors and proliferation of child pornography is being discovered more and more by law enforcement agencies as they peel back the layers of our degraded society.
Shockingly, our governing authorities seem hardly concerned by this sickening trend. For example, California’s lenient crime legislation has been releasing thousands of convicted pedophiles from prison in less than a year for horrific acts, including rape, sodomy and sexual abuse of kids under 14. And lately it has been reported that our federal government, for the sake of maintaining an uncomplicated border policy, is ignoring the trafficking of unaccompanied child migrants who are then “pimped out” by their criminal “sponsors” to pay their border-crossing debt.
Meanwhile, on the social scene, major news outlets seemingly have no problem publishing articles that try to normalize pedophilia; doctors are actively pushing for toddlers to be seen as fully-realized, willful sexual beings since birth; and the latest media scandal involves a popular celebrity-endorsed fashion company that is being called out for using calculated imagery of sexualized children in their advertising.
And in late-breaking news, American Girl, which makes a very popular brand of dolls, has reportedly just published a book for girls aged 3-12 which offers tips on how they can signal their sexual preferences “to the world” and also teaches them how to change gender by asking doctors for puberty blockers!
So what in the world is going on here? This increasing eagerness by some people to normalize the sexual prepping of our children has become so clearly obvious that one would think that this evil would be sharply denounced by every segment of our society. Alas, such is not always the case. To the contrary, this subversive activity is allowed to stand in many communities throughout our country; and sadly, the greatest promoters of this indoctrination are also the greatest influencers of children, other than parents: specifically, educators and popular media who have no problem putting sexually explicit materials or “toys” in the hands of our little ones.
The sad truth is, our nation has a widespread plague of sin-sickness that is victimizing and destroying our youth as much as Molech worship ever did, especially when you add abortion to the mix (Leviticus 18:21).
We Have Become Like the Philistines
Back in the 1960s, Ruth Graham (the wife of Billy) saw so much sinfulness in our country that she was provoked to remark in exasperation: “If God doesn’t punish America, He’ll have to apologize to Sodom and Gommorah.” One might wonder what Mrs. Graham would say if she were alive today to see this new level of evil. Perhaps, continuing with the theme she started, she might slightly amend her words to say, “If God doesn’t punish Americans, He’ll have to apologize to the Philistines.”
Why the Philistines? Like America today, the Philistine nation was also in open rebellion against God, continually harassing and oppressing His chosen people over the years. In one particular military assault, the Philistines defeated the Israelites in battle, stole their ark of the Covenant and placed it under the authority and physical control of their false god, Dagon.
Read More
Related Posts:
