The median Episcopal congregation had _____ active members and average worship attendance of _____ in 2004.
Please guess the answers.
The median Episcopal congregation had _____ active members and average worship attendance of _____ in 2004.
Please guess the answers.
230 and 90……my guess!
About 100 active members, and about 70 ASA
175 Active
65 ASA
200 members and ASA 50
No exact match on either number thus far.
140 members; 40 ASA
Using statistics from http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/2004_Table_of_Statistics.pdf
317.3 Active Baptized (2,405,155/7,579)
250.6 Communicants in good standing (1,899,547/7,579)
104.9 ASA (795,765/7,579)
240 on the rolls, 80 average Sunday attendance.
I can’t resist…. who’s closest so far?
Regardless of what orthodoxwill found, I don’t believe the official TEC numbers. Parish clergy are often tempted to inflate them when it comes to annual report time.
135 and 74
Of course the link in #7 also suggests
1.6 average recieved individuals per church
2.1 average confirmed
4.7 average burials
not a really good track record for our treatment of the Great Commission (assuming the national church still holds the Gospel of Matthew as authoritative)
177 and 75
Sorry #12 is wrong…4.6 average confirmations (was only looking at the kiddies…sorry)
Still…not all that good a track record
also…I agree w/ #10
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/Episcopal_Overview_FACT_2005.pdf
Art has the correct answer.
OOPS
I did mean…not median :red:
Henry,
Do you really beleive what you say? Do you have evidence or just a mis-trust of clergy?
These stats are gathered from a report filed annually that requires an apporval by the vestry of the congregation as well as the preists. Are you suggesting that the clergy and vestries are in on the VAST ECUSA CONSPIRACY to inflate the numbers?
If the attendance numbers aren’t correct are you also suggesting that the money numbers are inflated as well? If not, then why do you trust one and not the other- are you suggesting that preist only lie sometimes?
Evidence please.
Plainsparson,
I trust the ASA numbers more than the membership numbers. There is no incentive for clergy to cull the rolls of inactive members. They don’t intend to inflate the numbers, but most rarely go through the rolls to get rid of inactive members. I’m not saying this is intentional.
There is a large correlation (not necessarily causation) between the gap of ASA and Membership and the length of time the Rector/Vicar/Priest-in-Charge has been a the congregation. Many Rectors do a “purge” of the inactive rolls soon after arriving and the rolls grow and grow over time.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Phil,
With all do respect, what is your evidence for such an assertion? Why trust the ASA number and not the other? ASA only says what the average sunday attendance is, not a membership. (Most people attend occasionally not every week).
“most rarely go through the rolls” How can you say that? Do you actually know that or is just opinion?
“There is a large correlatoin… between the gap and membership…..”
What statistics do you have to back this up? Can you show me the correlation? Or is it just an oppinion because you look at a few graphs?
“Many recotors do a purge….”
Again, where is your proof of this? Why would a clergy person “purge” when they first arrive and not continue the practice? What exactly are you saying here? clergy are only honest the first year and then they fudge (lie)?
Phil and Henry….
If the numbers are so untrust worthy, why aren’t they staying at 2.5 million? Instead of the obvious decline that is reported?
Again where is your evidence to support your VAST ECUSA CONSPIRACY to inflate the numbers?
Plainsparson
I am not asserting a conspiracy to inflate the numbers. My “evidence” is my membership at several Episcopal congregations when a new rector comes, he always culled the rolls.
This is not a conspiracy, but human nature. It is not evil. It just is. I am not asserting a conspiracy, but rather mentioning what I’ve read in Church Growth books and heard at evangelism conferences.
Perhaps you go through the rolls every year to determine who should be set as inactive or written off entirely. Most Rectors I know don’t have that kind of time and there is no incentive to do so.
Perhaps if there was some incentive to keep ASA above a certain percentage of membership, then the rolls would be more accurate.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
#21, my rector pretty much confirms what you say. He began to work on updating and purging records after he arrived.
As we did not transfer anywhere when we left our TEC parish, I would not be surprised to find we were still listed on the rolls as members. But then our ASA hovered around 30-35.
I keep wanting to go through my parish record books and marking a lot of folks “inactive” whom I have never seen in my 16 years here (and adding in some who attend but are not recorded fully) — but there is a lot going on out there, and I have not gotten around to doing it. I do track attendance, though, week by week, so my ASA is accurate, even if membership is speculation
Have to agree with Phil …. there is no down side to “overestimating” both membership and ASA for the rector. It just becomes a mess for the next rector to fix among all the other things that need tweeking – especially after a long tenure – in a change of leadership.
Yes, Plainsparson, I have experienced this first hand.
D
Plainsparson,
I don’t understand why you think there is some big conspiracy here. My experience is exactly like Dn. Phil’s and the others. The rolls are rarely culled–there is no real reason to. Also, most clergy I’m familiar with have much more important things to do than cull the rolls. The ASA is fairly acurate, as it is kept week by week.
No conspiracy–just our experience of reality!
Another disincentive to culling the rolls is that (at least in the Diocese of VA) representation to annual councils is determined by the number of people on the rolls with at least one rep for each church.
Regardless of the ASA vs the rolls, the more meaningful number may be the age of the typical member; it’s beyond child bearing years. Species that do not reproduce die in a generation, and TEC is facing extinction regardless of the outcome of the battles that now consume us all.
Ralph hit the proverbial nail on the head. If one looks at the graph # 4 of the article by the TEC’s statistician, then the majority of the the parishes are in the bleak and bleaker categories. These are the categories where the percentage of parishioners of age 50 or more are 51-75% and greater than 75%. In those churches the per cent of growing churches is 19 and 14% respectively. Now if the average attendance of these churches is 74, they have no margin to shrink.
This is a comment to further the evidence of that initial year when clergy go through the membership rolls and if necessary “revise” the recorded stats.
The Episcopal Church has been counting heads in church services for a long, long time. As do most churches. Some denominations have had the custom of posting “last week’s attendance.” I believe that is because the people in the pew – and the leaders of worship – register visually the ups and downs of the life of the church by what they see or don’t see on Sundays.
Purging is an unfortunate term for what most new rectors (and senior pastors of all churches) do with the membership rolls during their first year. For Episcopalians it is a matter of re-count, perhaps better, reassessment of who is the official terms “active” and “inactive.” It is not that people’s names are erased from the Parish Register(s). They can’t be. And to be minimally considered “active” (as compared to “inactive” and to “communicant in good standing”) all you have to do is attend worship rarely, give infrequently, and be involved infrequently. “Purging” also implies that one is “getting rid of” of people. But it is also true that clergy new in office usually make an initial effort to contact the rolls of the inactives and encourage them to be active once again.
Why worry about it, going through the rolls? Well, for a number of reasons, some of which have been noted. Here’re a few more:
1) All a new clergy person knows in regard to members is the search committee and maybe members of the vestry or bishop’s committee. Going through the rolls and asking the question of status with someone very familiar with the parish or mission is a helpful way to begin knowing the members; if a pictorial directory is available even better. One of the things they will discover in this kind of process will be who seems to be peripheral to the congregation, as well as who are the movers and shakers.
2) When the parochial report is due the new clergy person will be asked “how many inactive members have become active?” and vice-versa. And accurate current count in that first year is the only way the new pastor will be able to answer those questions without guessing.
3) When a new rector or vicar comes on board, it is time to start a new base year for measuring growth or decline. An accurate count of active members, and confirming attendance figures, will strengthen the reliability of stats for that new base year.
4) The new pastor has much, much less personal investment in trying to maintain un-revised membership stats (if that has been the case) in regard to RalphM’s comment about diocesan convention representation. This is exactly the time to compare ASA with active membership stats to look for trends or inconsistencies, e.g. if ASA is 5% of membership, then there are serious questions to raise about the virtual life and health of the congregation. New pastors may also see the advantage of revising the membership stats, especially (and usually) if it means a reduction. Any future growth will more accurately reflect the new pastor’s ministry effect on the congregation, rather than dealing with the “leftovers” (if you will) of the previous rector or vicar.
It’s not about “lying”, although, yes, that has occasionally taken place, and it might have been termed as “stretching the truth.” It is more about the differences of organization, attentiveness, training, administrative style and abilities, staffing, and care.
RGEaton
But RobRoy, we’re too smart to have all those tacky babies, like the cat’licks…
There is no incentive for clergy to cull the rolls of inactive members. They don’t intend to inflate the numbers, but most rarely go through the rolls to get rid of inactive members. I’m not saying this is intentional.
Another reason for not culling the rolls is, I believe, the hope that some of those no longer coming will return. Obviously, people who have moved away are not likely to be back – but some do go and come again.
I just made a few phone calls to the three churches that I have been a member of since my baptism 9 years ago. The second and third church received my baptismal record and transfer from the preceeding church, but according to the secretaries, I am listed as an active member at all three churches. ( I have not attended or given to the first church in almost 5 years and the second in over 2 years.)
I know the secretary well at one of the churches that I no longer attend. She is a volunteer that has significant difficulties with the software that the church uses for reporting. She doesn’t intentionally report me as an active member, but doesn’t have any idea of how to remove me and her calls to the diocesian office in the past have gone unanswered.
My first parish had 350 on its rolls as communicants in good standing. At all three Sunday services my first Sunday there we had a grand total of 40 people present. I spent three years tracking down “ghosts” etc. and slowly deleted names. I purposely “cheated” a bit at first by not deleting so many as to reduce the parish to mission status. But by the time I left 8 years later the rolls were very accurate. I’ve done the same whereever I’ve served.
We have work hared to make the number reflect “reality” in our parish. But the reality is not always so easy to get your hands on. There are dozens of people who disappear for months, even a year and then reappear for a few weeks, only to disappear again. In their minds/hearts they are members of this parish, they just have a “hard time getting there every Sunday.” The probability is ASA is not accurate, but it is safe to say that the inaccuacies are consistent (sort of like weighing yourself every time on the home scale. It may be off on your actual weight, but it gives a good indication of whether you are gaining or losing pounds). One thing I have realized in the last year was the number of “repeats” who are included in our total ASA. We have three services and the organist, singers, priests, and nursery are all included in the count at each service (as has always been the case). There are also several folks who come to two services. So in actuality, our ASA has been inflated by 15 or so every week even though it is not done for any diabolical purposes. However, I have been in a parish where the priest regularly added 10 to the count because he was sure ‘they’ had miscounted. My guess is no one is inspired to make the count lower, but most of us want it higher. But that is not a new desire, so I trust that parishes are not suddenly monkeying with the numbers. The most important thing is, ages of the people and number at church. Under 900,000 ASA and over 25% above the age of 65 means that the Epsicopal Church is in trouble. And in five years we will see if it accelerates (decline and age).
As a parish rector I was once confronted and told I was “cooking the books.” The person who confronted me was upset about something else, and had no proof- they just “felt” I was decieving them. I decided that it was better to have others work on the membership and ASA so that this silly accusation would not happen again.
I think the solution is pretty simple and here is what we do at the church I currenlty serve.
The altar guild has a member attend each service. They are responsilble for counting the attendance, write it on a piece of paper and send to the preist during the oblations. That number is recorded in the parish registery of services and in an altar guild book. It is sometimes off by 5 or 10 people but we use it anyway.
Once each quater I have a small group of leaders sit down and go through our membership. They tell me who is active, who is missing, and who is homebound (they get commonion taken to them). We then move the inactive to inactive category. They still recieve mailings, e-mails, etc. but come parochial report time they are removed from the official rolls. We keep them on the mailing list for up to a year in case they come back.
This system works and it keeps our numbers honest. How much time does it take? About 16 hours a year to look over the parish records and about 3 minutes on sunday for someone to count. It isn’t that much work.
The plus is that it is no longer just the rectors responsibility.
>>One thing I have realized in the last year was the number of “repeats†who are included in our total ASA. We have three services and the organist, singers, priests, and nursery are all included in the count at each service (as has always been the case).<< Never realised that!!! Could it be a significant cause of ASA inflation, especially in parishes with small ASAs? Or even in parishes with larger ASAs who might have good-sized choirs, nurseries, and altar crews? In faith, Dave
We discuss this at Parish Council. There are people on our list who stay there because some members of parish council say “but they’d be so upset if we dropped them off the list.” And I wonder how they’d ever find out, cause they never show up.
We have about 200 on the list and ASA around 45 (including children) when Sunday School is on and maybe 30 in summer. Mentally I divide the list into: core attendees; parents who attend only to bring children in Sunday School; sometimes attendees; C&E (Christmas & Easter); “church supper only”; and “historical family connections”. Left to myself, I’d trim the list way back.
There are several different numbers in Canada – “identifiable givers” (households contributing at least $25 a year – a definition many years old.); parish list; annual vestry attendance; and so on.
Then there’s the census number, vastly greater than the church claims. Mostly “historic family connection”, or “great-grandma was an Anglican”.
There are also the husbands who never attend, ‘though the women and children of the family are there every Sunday.