Thank you for this tour of denominational demographics over the past sixty years. There is much (all of it, really) that I appreciated, including your concluding "Biblical Response." I also appreciate the effort you put into creating the comprehensive breakouts of by nation and region, members and baptized. That was a huge effort with interesting results. Thank you.
I think you were suggesting, but didn't quite say directly, that CRCNA demographics are in a serious decline. You asked, "Are we dying out?" Thank you for putting the question squarely in front of the presentation. I applaud you for asking the question.
You spend some time cautioning again "blame." I'll go along with that. Blame is not productive. Especially now.
You specifically asked for discussion around your chart at the fourteen-minute mark. I believe it was entitled, "Membership Trend Chart." It is exactly the right chart to get at the dynamics of the turbulent 1990s.
You noted this "Trend" chart is a recent chart for you. I want to support the idea that this chart offers accurate insights into the volatile decade 1993 to 2004 -- the big gap in the chart. The chart shows the net change per year as quite small. Even so, during those years we know the actual losses were far greater than small. We lost many members during that decade.
The chart also shows we were net positive before the 1990s and then again after~ 2000 (I can't see the chart while I am in this comment section.) How could we net gain after a decade if this was a demographic change of sea state?
I offer an idea for conversation. I have suggest the Yearbook data is inaccurate for that decade and your chart is a clear demonstration of how inaccurate the data reporting was. (This is NOT to blame the denominational office. It is a reflection of the fact that the clerks in the local churches were struggling to record and report accurately during the turbulent changes. For example, when a congregation left CRCNA for URC we do not imagine the departing clerk of Council gave an accurate ending report to the CRCNA Yearbook offices. No, they just stopped replying to requests for information.) I have done check-sums for the columns of data during that time and I can't get anywhere near to reconciliation of the numbers -- that is, the NET losses do not come close to matching the individual columns of gains and loss. Again, we have a pretty good guess about how that could happen as people bailed out.
If you would be willing to host a conversation, I think we could learn a great deal about this time by reconciling the Gains and Losses against the Net. I've been producing similar charts for some years now and I would love to have the accurate answer to what really happened.
I produced a net gain and loss chart based on subtracted the Total of one year from the previous year for all the years. It's a different chart -- because the data is flawed, I believe.
I am in agreement with you that this is not a matter of blame. It's a matter of accuracy and understanding what really happened. As is true of all good science, accurate information may give us better tools for managing the future.
Thank you for the quick reply. I realize you are busy (while I am retired) so I will be as brief as possible. (Not very brief, but I assure you, I did my best.) I hand-plotted my first chart in 1997. Starting with Yearbook 1901 I began building charts. Since then I have been wondering ….
Here is my area of disconnect.
The Math: I believe that the SUM of the three sources of membership gain MINUS the SUM of the three sources of membership loss should EQUAL the NET GAIN or LOSS in Total Members (Sorry about the caps, but I’m trying to be clear.)
Your Chart: Your chart accurately shows exactly that for a given year* – say, Yearbook 1995. Your chart shows about 1000 members lost in CY 1994 as reported in Yearbook 1995. (The Yearbook numbers show +9165 MINUS 10,267. Alexa tells me that is a LOSS of <1102>. Your chart reports exactly what we would expect if we use the Total Growth column and the Total Decline column.
Actual Loss: However, the ACTUAL CHANGE in Total Membership between (December) 1992 and (January) 1997 was reported as follows:
1992 316,415
1993 311,202 <5213>
1994 300,320 <10,882>
1995 294,179 <6141>
1996 291,796 <2383>
1997 285,864 <5932>
I made a chart for the entire online dataset, 1963 to present, manually calculated the losses and gains each year. The attached, if it can be pasted, show the results I calculated.
(It looks like I am not able to attach the chart. Too bad.)
Every year during this short sample to ACTUAL loss to TOTAL MEMBERS is between 2383 and 10,882. And, during that same period, the other columns, called “TOTAL GROWTH and TOTAL DECLINE do not show anything like that. (As illustrated above for the year CY 1994 in Yearbook 1995.
In fact, using the Growth and Decline columns the calculated membership change is approximately zero for my shorter sample period 1992-1997. But, in fact, we lost 32,000 members, or less.
IS there a 32,000 member error? That amount, 32,000 is nearly 10% of the original starting membership (316,415) and needs some sort of accounting.
We declined approximately 15,000 adults (professing.)
We declined approximately 17,000 children (baptized.)
I am suggesting that the ACCURATE number is the Total Members column, that we did lose 32,000 members, and that the other two columns, Total Growth and Total Decline, are not accurate.
I am suggesting the cause of the error is analogous to what you said in your verbal explanation about the years 2020 – 2022 – there was some error due to COVID. It was an offhand remark so I didn’t get the exact wording. I am very confident you are correct about COVID accounting – the real numbers will be much lower. Anyway, by analogy, while we were losing 32,000 members we lost track of the data.
Again, for reference, we declined 7000 Total Members. But the Total Gains and Losses reports only a 2000 difference. (3331 – 5306 == 1975.) That’s a 5000 difference. Too large to be ignored. You rightly attribute this to COVID counting.
I have many more areas of interest, but this one is most relevant to the viability of CRCNA and I hope we will learn something helpful.
Thank you for your patiencc.
(* If anyone following along is not familiar, the 1992 Yearbook reports the EOY data for 1991. It can be a little confusing. I know it can be for me.)
One last thing --to anyone who stumbles across this discussion, be sure to remember that the sidebar conversation about numbers is not nearly as important as Dr. Carlson's summary statements in the last several minutes of his presentation.
Posted in: CRCNA Membership Trends 1963-2022
Dr. Carlson,
Thank you for this tour of denominational demographics over the past sixty years. There is much (all of it, really) that I appreciated, including your concluding "Biblical Response." I also appreciate the effort you put into creating the comprehensive breakouts of by nation and region, members and baptized. That was a huge effort with interesting results. Thank you.
I think you were suggesting, but didn't quite say directly, that CRCNA demographics are in a serious decline. You asked, "Are we dying out?" Thank you for putting the question squarely in front of the presentation. I applaud you for asking the question.
You spend some time cautioning again "blame." I'll go along with that. Blame is not productive. Especially now.
You specifically asked for discussion around your chart at the fourteen-minute mark. I believe it was entitled, "Membership Trend Chart." It is exactly the right chart to get at the dynamics of the turbulent 1990s.
You noted this "Trend" chart is a recent chart for you. I want to support the idea that this chart offers accurate insights into the volatile decade 1993 to 2004 -- the big gap in the chart. The chart shows the net change per year as quite small. Even so, during those years we know the actual losses were far greater than small. We lost many members during that decade.
The chart also shows we were net positive before the 1990s and then again after~ 2000 (I can't see the chart while I am in this comment section.) How could we net gain after a decade if this was a demographic change of sea state?
I offer an idea for conversation. I have suggest the Yearbook data is inaccurate for that decade and your chart is a clear demonstration of how inaccurate the data reporting was. (This is NOT to blame the denominational office. It is a reflection of the fact that the clerks in the local churches were struggling to record and report accurately during the turbulent changes. For example, when a congregation left CRCNA for URC we do not imagine the departing clerk of Council gave an accurate ending report to the CRCNA Yearbook offices. No, they just stopped replying to requests for information.) I have done check-sums for the columns of data during that time and I can't get anywhere near to reconciliation of the numbers -- that is, the NET losses do not come close to matching the individual columns of gains and loss. Again, we have a pretty good guess about how that could happen as people bailed out.
If you would be willing to host a conversation, I think we could learn a great deal about this time by reconciling the Gains and Losses against the Net. I've been producing similar charts for some years now and I would love to have the accurate answer to what really happened.
I produced a net gain and loss chart based on subtracted the Total of one year from the previous year for all the years. It's a different chart -- because the data is flawed, I believe.
I am in agreement with you that this is not a matter of blame. It's a matter of accuracy and understanding what really happened. As is true of all good science, accurate information may give us better tools for managing the future.
Posted in: CRCNA Membership Trends 1963-2022
Thank you for the quick reply. I realize you are busy (while I am retired) so I will be as brief as possible. (Not very brief, but I assure you, I did my best.) I hand-plotted my first chart in 1997. Starting with Yearbook 1901 I began building charts. Since then I have been wondering ….
Here is my area of disconnect.
The Math: I believe that the SUM of the three sources of membership gain MINUS the SUM of the three sources of membership loss should EQUAL the NET GAIN or LOSS in Total Members (Sorry about the caps, but I’m trying to be clear.)
Your Chart: Your chart accurately shows exactly that for a given year* – say, Yearbook 1995. Your chart shows about 1000 members lost in CY 1994 as reported in Yearbook 1995. (The Yearbook numbers show +9165 MINUS 10,267. Alexa tells me that is a LOSS of <1102>. Your chart reports exactly what we would expect if we use the Total Growth column and the Total Decline column.
Actual Loss: However, the ACTUAL CHANGE in Total Membership between (December) 1992 and (January) 1997 was reported as follows:
1992 316,415
1993 311,202 <5213>
1994 300,320 <10,882>
1995 294,179 <6141>
1996 291,796 <2383>
1997 285,864 <5932>
I made a chart for the entire online dataset, 1963 to present, manually calculated the losses and gains each year. The attached, if it can be pasted, show the results I calculated.
(It looks like I am not able to attach the chart. Too bad.)
Every year during this short sample to ACTUAL loss to TOTAL MEMBERS is between 2383 and 10,882. And, during that same period, the other columns, called “TOTAL GROWTH and TOTAL DECLINE do not show anything like that. (As illustrated above for the year CY 1994 in Yearbook 1995.
In fact, using the Growth and Decline columns the calculated membership change is approximately zero for my shorter sample period 1992-1997. But, in fact, we lost 32,000 members, or less.
IS there a 32,000 member error? That amount, 32,000 is nearly 10% of the original starting membership (316,415) and needs some sort of accounting.
We declined approximately 15,000 adults (professing.)
We declined approximately 17,000 children (baptized.)
I am suggesting that the ACCURATE number is the Total Members column, that we did lose 32,000 members, and that the other two columns, Total Growth and Total Decline, are not accurate.
I am suggesting the cause of the error is analogous to what you said in your verbal explanation about the years 2020 – 2022 – there was some error due to COVID. It was an offhand remark so I didn’t get the exact wording. I am very confident you are correct about COVID accounting – the real numbers will be much lower. Anyway, by analogy, while we were losing 32,000 members we lost track of the data.
Again, for reference, we declined 7000 Total Members. But the Total Gains and Losses reports only a 2000 difference. (3331 – 5306 == 1975.) That’s a 5000 difference. Too large to be ignored. You rightly attribute this to COVID counting.
I have many more areas of interest, but this one is most relevant to the viability of CRCNA and I hope we will learn something helpful.
Thank you for your patiencc.
(* If anyone following along is not familiar, the 1992 Yearbook reports the EOY data for 1991. It can be a little confusing. I know it can be for me.)
Posted in: CRCNA Membership Trends 1963-2022
One last thing --to anyone who stumbles across this discussion, be sure to remember that the sidebar conversation about numbers is not nearly as important as Dr. Carlson's summary statements in the last several minutes of his presentation.
Posted in: CRCNA Membership Trends 1963-2022
Hi Harry,
2037 is fifteen years. What do you see the membership at that time?