WHHEN W

Figure 1:

WE GA P

: Frequently

GATHPC(US

Occurring W

HER SA) Sn

Words in Par

AT Tnapsh

rticipants’ Su

THE Thot

uggested Ma

TAB

antras

BLE

 

A

u

W

cios

bin

Areas of Inv

This workused ultimatel

What

What indivi

What

What

On wof opi

Who Particip

Because tcongregationsmmigrant fel

of Presbyteriasuch, we cann

Findings fbeen taken fron the study re

Exception

AgroupCommsough2015, convetalenteto gath

•

•

•

Th21st CAnothhttp://

C

CreportCOGA

vestigation

k originally soly focused on

does it mean

is the churchidual congreg

is the church

is central to o

what things doinions?

pated

this project ins, seminaries, lowships]) w

ans was not fenot calculate a

from the resulom a (random)eveals that the

ns are noted in

Across the Pres are discerni

mittee on the Oht to understan

COGA cameersations and ted people of ther these con

Open to an

Open-ende

Open to wh

his report is thCentury,” can her report, “C/www.pcusa.o

OGA offers i

OGA commet is provided bA sought.

Stud

ought to explon these:

n to be part of

h better equippgations and m

h called to be

our shared ide

o we achieve

nvited the inpumid councilsithin a short t

easible. Insteaa response rat

lting convenie) probability s sample some

n the Demogr

sbyterian Chuing together wOffice of the nd the currente to an understheir insights the Presbyteriversations. Th

nyone who wi

ed questions w

herever the da

he results of tbe found at hoding Instrumorg/resource/c

it to the PC(U

entary of our fby Research S

FAMILY

dy Design

ore several ge

f this denomin

ped to do as amid council off

and do in the

entity, and ho

a strong con

ut of any and s, and varioustimeframe, crad, a conveniee.

ence sample wsample. Howeewhat matches

raphics sectio

urch (U.S.A.)who we are asGeneral Asset nature of oustanding that itogether for tian Mission Ahe key goals

ished to partic

with no preset

ata lead

the gathered dhttp://www.pcment for PC(Ucoding-instru

USA) as a port

findings is prServices in th

Y PORTR

and Imple

eneral researc

nation? How i

a national denfices?

context of 21

ow do we exp

nsensus, and o

all people ans affiliated groeating a probence sample (

will not be as gever, an analys the known d

on, which follo

), congregatios a church andembly (COGAur ecclesiologyit would be vathe benefit ofAgency Reseaof the proces

cipate

t list of answe

data. The fullcusa.org/resouUSA) Identityument-pcusa-i

trait of who w

esented with heir work in co

RAIT

ementatio

ch questions, t

important is t

nomination th

1st-century A

press it?

on what thin

nd entities of toups [e.g. Newability sampl(that is—a sam

generalizable ysis of the demdemographics

ows.

ons, mid cound who God isA) has also eny, the theologaluable to atte

f the whole charch Services s were:

ers

l report, “Finaurce/final-rep

y Survey Dateidentity-surve

we, the PC(US

“shaded” bacollecting and

n

though the in

that to Presbyt

hat it could no

American cultu

ngs do we hav

the PC(USA)w Worshipingle to ensure a mple of volun

as findings wmographics of s of Presbyteri

ncils, and othe calling us to ngaged in thisgy of church. empt to bringhurch. COGAand develope

al Report: Theport-church-2e” can be founey/.

SA), see ours

ckground. Allanalyzing the

nstrument that

terians, and w

t do as well a

ure?

ve a broad di

(individuals,g Communitierepresentativ

nteers) was us

would be if thef those who paians as a whol

er interested be. The

s discussion aIn the summe

g these many A worked withed an instrum

e Church in th21st-century. nd at

selves to be.

l other text ine data which

t was

why?

as

versity

, es,

ve group sed. As

ey had articipated le.

as it er of

h the ment

he

n the

 

Demographics

Length of Membership: Because we were specifically interested in hearing from PC(USA) members, we asked, “Are you a member of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)?” Participants were presented with four different response options:

• Yes, I am a member of the PC(USA).

• Yes, I consider myself Presbyterian but don’t identify with any particular denomination.

• No, I belong to another Presbyterian denomination.

• No, I’m not Presbyterian.

If participants answered “no” to this question, they were sent to an exit screen where they were thanked for their participation and were asked no other questions. Of the 3,427 who answered this question affirmatively, 98 percent said they are members of the PC(USA) and 2 percent said they consider themselves Presbyterian but do not identify with any particular Presbyterian denomination. About half (55 percent) of the participants were raised in the denomination. Those who joined or converted to the PC(USA) average 24 years with the denomination, with a range of 1–71 years.

Role: Participants were asked which role(s) they have in the PC(USA) (see Figure 2). Though many participants hold more than one role, a hierarchy was used to show only one role for each.

More than a third (41 percent) of all participants are ruling elders (but not commissioned ruling elders), about a third (34 percent) are commissioned ruling elders or teaching elders, and one fourth (25 percent) are neither (members, 19 percent, and deacons, 6 percent). These proportions are consistent with our expectations for who would be most informed about the denomination and, therefore, more likely to participate in this process. Overall, 16 percent of the participants serve as a pastoral leader of one or more congregations, and 18 percent are commissioned ruling elders or teaching elders serving in some other capacity.

Those who checked “teaching elder” or “commissioned ruling elder” were asked to select from among fourteen categories to describe their current employment. They were able to check all that apply. Among the 34 percent of the participants who are either commissioned ruling elders or teaching elders:

• 61 percent of teaching elders and 14 percent of CREs serve as a pastoral leader of one or more congregations (16 percent overall)

deacon6%

teaching elder30%

commissioned ruling elder

4%

ruling elder41%

member19%

Figure 2: Participants’ Roles within PC(USA)

 

• 10 percent of teaching elders and 3 percent of CREs serve as PC(USA) presbytery, synod, or national staff

• 3 percent of teaching elders and 21 percent of CREs serve in a non-pastoral position in one or more congregations

• 5 percent of teaching elders and 3 percent of CREs serve as faculty or staff at a seminary or theological school or other educational institution

• 6 percent of teaching elders and 2 percent of CREs serve as a chaplain in the military, a hospital or other health-care facility, or some other location

• 28 percent of teaching elders and 79 percent of CREs serve in some other way, have positions outside the church, are not currently employed, or are retired

Gender: More than half of the participants (54 percent) are female, and almost half (46 percent) are male. This compares to a 58 percent female/42 percent male PC(USA) ratio for members of PC(USA) congregations, according to the most recently available OGA data (2014).

Age: Three in five participants (61 percent) are over age 55. In comparison, the median age range of Presbyterian members is 56–65, according to 2014 OGA data, which tells us that more than half of Presbyterians are in this age range or older.

• 25 or under: 2 percent

• 26–45: 19 percent

• 46–55: 18 percent

• 56–65: 27 percent

• over 65: 34 percent

Race/Ethnicity: Ninety-five percent of participants self-identify as White or Caucasian; in addition, 2 percent identify as Hispanic, Latino/a, or Spanish origin, and 2 percent as Black or African American. Few participants identify with other racial ethnic groups (1 percent Asian, 1 percent multiracial, and less than 1 percent Middle Eastern or Native American). White or Caucasian participants are slightly overrepresented compared to 2014 OGA statistics; Hispanic, Latino/a, or Spanish Origin participants are similar in proportion to 2014 OGA statistics, as are Middle Eastern and Native American participants. Black or African American participants are slightly underrepresented, as are Asian or Pacific Islander participants.

Region: Teaching elders were then asked to which presbytery they belong; all others were asked the name, city, and state of their congregation. These data were used to identify the geographic regions in which participants belong (see Figure 3). When a congregation or presbytery name was not listed by participants, we used the location from which they logged in to fill in the instrument to map their state and region. A list of participants by state is also provided in Figure 4, with counts in each state. The darker the color, the more participants who were from that state.

 

S

Due to rou

outh

unding, percent

50% 

Figure

Midwes

Figu

tages do not ad

e 3: Particip

OGA 2014 d

t

ure 4: Partici

dd up to 100 pe

pants’ Regio

data Part

West

ipants’ Locat

rcent

onal Locatio

ticipants

North

tion by State

ons

heast

e

Puerto Ric

co

 

Educational Level: Compared to the general U.S. public, Presbyterians are more educated and have higher total household incomes. Teaching elders all have graduate degrees, so to compare education, only the participants who are not teaching elders are examined here. Member participants in this study are slightly more educated in comparison to Presbyterian members in general (Figure 5), based on data from the 2016 Presbyterian Panel demographic report.

Figure 5: Participants’ Educational Levels

Participant Members PC(USA) Members

50%

High school diploma or less Associate’s/Bachelor’s degree Graduate degree

Household Income Level: Member participants in the COGA study are slightly less likely than the PC(USA) member population as a whole (again, compared to the profile of the Presbyterian Panel, recruited in 2015) to have a household income of $195,000 or more (Figure 6). Since the income levels of members and teaching elders differ, the comparisons in Figure 5 are restricted to members.

Figure 6: Participants’ Household Incomes

Participant Members PC(USA) Members

20k or less 20k–40k 40k–65k 65k–105k 105k–195k 195k or more

Social and Theological Orientations: Participants were asked, “Would you say that you are more POLITICALLY liberal, conservative, or neutral?” (1–7 scale with 1 as “liberal” and 7 as “conservative”). Then they were asked a similarly worded question to place themselves on a THEOLOGICAL spectrum. See Figure 7.

Liberals and conservatives are both over-represented in this sample, by about the same amount. Social (political) and theological “moderates,” (shown in Figure 7 as “neutral”) on the other hand, are under-represented. This is understandable, as those with a political or theological leaning may have been more vested in providing their opinion on the state of the denomination.

3% 3%

10% 9%

18% 18%

29% 28%27%

25%

13%

17%

 

tt

ts

Y

cttp

T

In compartheologically theologically

One of thethey belong hsaid “yes” and

Yes

Among thcited was the that they enjoythey referred tpart of the pol

cons

The resPC(USA) wthe future othe respons

F

Theological O

rison to particconservative,conservative,

e first questioas a relationshd 44 percent s

he 1,598 particonnectional y, and the wato the conneclity/governan

servative 35%

neutral 11%

sponse to this we are eager bof the church. ses largely mi

Figure 7: Par

Orientation

cipants in this, and 32 perce, and 35 perce

Is It Impo

ons we asked whip with the Psaid “no” or “

cipants who snature of the

ay that this cotional nature ce theme inste

libe54%

COGA inquiboth to give eWhile our sarrored and ar

rticipants’ So

s study, PC(Uent neutral. Teent neutral.

ortant to B

was whether iPC(USA). Of“I don’t know

said that it is church (Figunnectionalismin terms of acead).

eral %

iry exceeded xpression to t

ampling methe reflective o

ocial and The

USA) membereaching elder

Be Part of

it is importanf the 2,871 pa

w.” Participant

important, theure 8); particum leads to pooccountability

c

ne

all our expecttheir interestsodology allowf the known d

eological Ori

Social

rs are 41percers are 45 perc

f the PC(U

nt to participanarticipants ansts were also a

e most frequeularly the sensoled resourcestructures or

conservative29%

eutral9%

tations. It sees and concernwed any who demographics

ientations

Orientation

ent theologicacent theologic

USA)?

nts that any cswering this qasked if they c

ently reportedse of communs for more eff

r discipline, w

lib6

ems evident thns and to parti wished to pas of the churc

ally liberal, 26cally liberal, 2

ongregation tquestion, 56 pcould explain

d reason particnity and frienffective ministwe counted tho

beral 2%

hat within theicipate in shaparticipate to doch as a whole.

6 percent 20 percent

to which percent n further.

cipants ndships try (if ose as

e ping o so, .

 

Figure 8: Why It’s Important That My Congregation Is PC(USA)

Percentage of Participants Who Answered “Yes”; n = 1,598

Connectional Nature 30%

Identity/Heritage/Tradition 28%

Theology/Reformed Theology 26%

Polity/Governance 23%

Helping the World/My Neighbor 17%

Thinking Church/Educated Leaders 14%

Leadership/Formation 9%

Progressive Values 9%

Inclusive/Welcoming 8%

Ecumenical & Interfaith Relations 5%

Worship Style/Liturgy 4%

Embraces Change 2%

Other 12%

No/Not Sure

It may be surprising that only 56 percent of the participants said yes (34 percent said no; 10 percent didn’t know). It might lead one to wonder if fully a third of Presbyterians are unhappy.

However, we also asked these participants to explain their answers, and when we started analyzing the “No” and “I don’t know/Can’t decide” responses, it became clearer that for many, it’s really the congregation that matters, not the denomination. (Figure 9).

 

Figure 9: Why It’s NOT Important That My Congregation Is PC(USA)

Percentage of Participants Who Answered “No” or “I Don't Know”; n = 1,273

Denomination Not That Important 62%

PC(USA) Turned from Scripture/Too Political 32%

PC(USA) Too Top-Down/Not Engaged 4%

Generally Unhappy 2%

Other 10%

We could divide the 1,273 participants who said “No” or “I don’t know/Can’t decide” into two main groups. The larger group (62 percent of those who said “No” or “I don’t know/Can’t decide”) consists of those for whom it doesn’t really matter to which denomination they belong. Their comments suggest one of two things:

• First, that the denomination isn’t all that important, as long as it’s either

○ Mainline,

○ Reformed,

○ Open to the ordination of women,

○ Progressive,

○ Theologically aligned with their beliefs.

• Second, it wouldn’t matter which denomination they belong to as long as they like their congregation. They pointed to the health and vitality of the congregation as being more important than denominational affiliation.

The smaller group (38 percent) consists of those who seem genuinely unhappy to be part of the PC(USA), citing either that they feel that the denomination

• has lost its way (32 percent say the PC(USA) has turned its back on God, ignored scripture, is too political, or has caved to the secular culture);

• is too top-down and out of touch with congregations (4 percent);

• has changed or cannot be trusted, without being specific (2 percent).

This suggests that the percentage of participants who are unhappy with the denomination can be estimated at 17 percent (38 percent of the 1,273 who answered “no” or “don’t know” is equal to 17 percent of the 2,871 participants answering the question).

Importance of Belonging to PC(USA) by Social and Theological Orientation

There is a significant difference in how participants responded to this question by their social and theological orientation (Table 1). Whereas 74 percent of liberals in this sample (theological and social) say it is important that any congregation they belong to is in relationship with PC(USA), only 29 percent of social conservatives and 33 percent of theological conservatives say the same. Furthermore, more than half of conservatives (59 percent of social conservatives and 55 percent of theological conservatives) state that it is NOT important that they belong to a PC(USA) congregation.

 

tP

W

op

Yes No I don’t k

Yes No I don’t k

Liberals inthat they belonPC(USA) affi

Why Presbyt

Participanother denominparticipants an

know

know

n this sampleng to PC(USAiliation is imp

W

terian?

nts were then nation, what wnswered this q

Table 1: Orie

libe74%19%8%

libe74%18%9%

are more conA). Conserva

portant to them

What Presb

asked, “If somwould you telquestion.

Figure 10: W

entation by Im

eral % %

% T

eral % %

%

nnected to thetives in this s

m.

byterians V

meone asked ll them?” Res

What Presbyt

mportance of B

Social Orieneu44%42%14%

Theological Or

neu55%33%12%

*D

e denominatiosample, on the

Value abo

you why yousults are show

terians Value

Belonging to P

entation (n=2,9utral % % % rientation (n=2

utral % % %

Due to rounding, p

on; in generale other hand,

out the PC

u are Presbytewn in the right

e about the P

PC(USA)

911) cons29%59%12%

2,888)

cons33%55%11%

percentages may n

l, it is more imare not as lik

C(USA)

erian rather tht-hand column

PC(USA)

servative % % %

servative % % %

ot add up to 100%

mportant to libkely to say the

han belongingn in Figure 10

berals eir

g to some 0; 3,052

 

aitpI

t

e

pv

tirt

or

W

“t

Not surpriasked why it’smportance of

thinking abouprevious quesIt’s important

In the motheology is th

About a thelder/teaching

About a fopraying througvoices, and va

Another ftradition as a rmagine not b

research has lthat they were

In the nexopportunities relief/assistan

What PC(US

We also a“What does ththe denominat

These cReformed idessentials ofIndeed, oftethose who re

isingly, the ths important thf these themesut their congrestion, shown o

to note that m

st frequently e main reason

hird (29 perceg elder balanc

fourth (24 percgh a discernmaluing intellig

fourth (23 perreason why theing Presbyteed them to vae ordained as

xt largest catefor participance.

SA) Does Wel

asked participhe church alretion (Figure 1

omments sugdentity. Beingf our faith to ten the attachmesponded.

hemes found ihat their congs (based on thegation to themon the left, wimany of the p

appearing then (or one of th

ent) say that oce, the Presby

cent) cited thement process wgence and edu

rcent) mentionhey are Presberian. For othalue the rich hPC(USA) mi

gory, 17 percnts to help oth

ll

ants to imagineady have/do 11).

ggest that respg part of a comthe structure o

ment is one tha

in these respogregation be ahe number of mselves (Figuith the orderinparticipants of

eme from resphe main reason

one of the reayterian Constit

e fact that wewhen faced wucation, espec

ned somethinyterian. For mers who may

history of the inisters and ha

cent said they hers, through

ne the Presbythat fits your

pondents, intemmunity that of a youth proat words cann

onses closely ssociated withpeople who gure 10 compang of the top tffered multipl

ponses to thisns) they are P

asons is politytution, and th

e are a thinkinwith difficult dcially when it

g about persomany, it goes be newer to tPresbyterian ave made a hi

appreciate thadvocacy, mi

yterian Churchr ideal?” as an

ellectually andwrestles toge

ogram is a tienot capture, bu

mirror those th the denomigave similar rares the rank othemes from le reasons.

s question (41Presbyterian.

y. Participantshe clear proce

ng church: beidecisions, bein

comes to hav

onal or denomso far back in

the denominatradition. Anistoric comm

hat the churchission work, e

h (U.S.A.) in nother way to

d emotionallyether to makee that binds reut that is a de

of the previouination. Howeresponses) shiordering of ththis question,

1 percent), par

s especially vasses for decis

ing intentionang open to lisving highly ed

minational iden their familyation, some pend for a few o

mitment to the

h helps others evangelism, a

its ideal form understand w

y, place a highe decisions ranespondents to efining part of

us question, wever, the relatifts as they m

he top themes, shown on th

rticipants said

alue the rulingsion making.

al about thinkstening to diffducated clergy

entity, heritagy history they ersonal explothers, it simpdenomination

and/or proviand/or disaste

m, and then aswhat they valu

h value on ounging from thour denomin

f the identity

which tive

move from s from the he right).

d that the

g

king and ferent y.

e, or cannot ration or ly means n.

des er

sked, ue about

ur he nation.

of

 

Figure 11: What the Church Already Has/Does That Fits My Ideal

Percentage of Participants, n = 2,740

Helping others 36%

Polity 24%

Helping the denomination 21%

Thinking church 21%

Inclusive and welcoming 19%

Theology 16%

Community and connectionalism 14%

Negative comments about the PC(USA) 12%

Maintain heritage/tradition 4%

Promote progressive values 3%

Ecumenical and interfaith partnerships 3%

Other 8%

This way of thinking of the PC(USA) influenced participants to think more about actions than about heritage, polity, or theology (except when they mentioned how theology motivates action).

The number one theme, coming from responses provided by 36 percent of the participants, was helping others, and includes: mission, advocacy, disaster, evangelism, and having a strong national voice on issues important to the public. So, while helping others was only the fifth-highest value in the previous two questions (refer back to Figure 9), it receives the highest mention here.

The second most frequently appearing theme is polity, mentioned by 24 percent of the participants.

This is followed by two themes that are tied in importance, with 21 percent of the participants making a comment about either of these:

The first theme is the way we are able to help ourselves and each other as a denomination. Participants outline four key ways they believe we help the denomination:

• 43 percent of the comments about helping the congregation were regarding how we provide worshiping community support and resources (9 percent of the comments overall);

• 35 percent of the comments about how we help the overall church; (7 percent overall) were about how we support and develop seminaries, pastors and church workers;

• This tied closely with training, leadership development, and spiritual formation of members (34 percent of “helping the denomination” and 7 percent of overall comments);

• Finally, 15 percent of the comments about how we help the church’s members and teaching elders (3 percent overall) regard providing denominational leadership and direction.

The second theme, tied in importance with the way we help the church (21 percent) is the fact that we are a thinking church (i.e., intentional about dialogue and debate, collective discernment, and valuing education and educated pastors).

 

The belief that we are an inclusive, welcoming church that supports diversity in the church is mentioned by 19 percent of participants.

About 16 percent mention theology as something they value about being PC(USA). Many made mention specifically of the Reformed faith, the Confessions, or aspects of theology that were clearly Reformed; others did not, but gave vague references to theology or shared beliefs.

About Structure: What We Are Better Equipped to Do as a National Denomination than as Individual Congregations, Mid Councils, or Networks

We then asked participants, “What are we better equipped to do as a national denomination that we could not do (or do as well) on our own as congregations, mid councils, or networks?”

The themes that emerged from these responses also closely mirrored those from the previous questions that asked why participants would say they are Presbyterian, and what the church already has/does that fits their ideal, though they appear in a different order once again (Figure 12).

Figure 12: What We Are Better Equipped to Do as a National Denomination Percentage of Participants, n = 2,882

Helping others 59%

Helping the denomination 30%

Community and connectionalism 21%

Negative comments about PC(USA) 15%

Thinking church 14%

Polity 8%

Ecumenical and interfaith partnerships 5%

Inclusive and welcoming 4%

Theology 2%

Promote progressive values 1%

Maintain heritage/tradition 1%

Other 4%

By far, the most frequently occurring theme is “helping others” (59 percent of the participants mentioned this). Many of these responses were generically stated as helping others, helping people, helping a hurting world, and similar statements. We also included in this theme mentions of mission, both local and worldwide, as well as advocacy, being a strong voice for our society, disaster relief and assistance, outreach, and evangelism.

After helping others, the next most frequently occurring theme is “helping the denomination,” with 30 percent of the participants mentioning either denominational leadership, spiritual formation, leadership development, or pastor or worshiping community support.

Community was the third most-mentioned thing that we are better equipped to do as a national denomination, with 21 percent of the participants mentioning either its connectional nature, the people, or the fact that we can accomplish more by pooling resources.

 

Of course, as suggested earlier, not everyone feels that the national church model is the best way to accomplish the work of the church; 15 percent of participants gave answers that can best be summed up as “little or nothing.” The primary reasons appear to be a belief that the denomination has turned away from scripture/God; that denominational leaders present only the liberal views to the American public, while ignoring the conservative voices; that the organization is too bureaucratic/top down; or too political/involved in politics; and that our consciences are informed by public sentiment/worldly values, rather than by God’s Word.

For the next most-frequent theme: 14 percent of participants say that what we are better equipped to do at the national level is be a “thinking church”: engage in intentional dialogue, share expertise, and discern God’s will together; having these conversations at the national, not just congregational, level. One participant summed up the comments about this theme nicely:

I think how we make decisions as a national denomination is important. Although we don’t always agree, I do always feel the spirit while watching General Assembly meetings moving us forward. I feel if these decisions were each made on [a] congregational level, [it] would leave the motion of the spirit leading the church based off of individual interpretation instead of interpreting as a larger community.

What Changes Are Recommended by Participants?

What the Church Needs to Change

After we asked, “What does the denomination already have/do that fits your ideal?” (results reported above), we followed it with this question: “What does the church need to change in order to reach this ideal?” (See Figure 13.)

Figure 13: What Participants Think the Church Needs to Change

Percentage of Participants, n = 2,675

Focus outward 24%

Focus on/return to scripture, God, and Jesus 19%

Focus inward 17%

Promote reconciliation & allow theological diversity 16%

Streamline and flatten the hierarchy 14%

Steer clear of politics, liberalism, and secular culture 13%

Suggested change to polity 12%

Be more inclusive and welcoming 11%

Think outside the box and be relevant 7%

Be more progressive or liberal 5%

Be in community 5%

Nothing to change and keep it up 4%

General complaints about leadership 3%

Promote ecumenical & interfaith dialogue 2%

Other 9%

Of the themes that emerged from comments on this question, an outward focus is the one that stood out the most, with 24 percent of participants mentioning mission, advocacy, disaster relief/assistance, evangelism, and/or being a strong voice to the public as things they’d like to see happening more in the church.

The second most common theme focuses on faithfulness: to God, to scripture, to Jesus, with 19 percent of the participants mentioning this as a needed change.

 

This is followed closely by a theme that is more inward in its focus, with 17 percent of participants saying that the church should focus more on spiritual formation, leadership development, pastor support, and worshiping community support.

The next most frequently occurring theme is about reconciliation, with 16 percent of participants asking the church to promote reconciliation within its walls, be more tolerant of theological diversity, discern together what the future should look like, and/or educate one another about different views.

Some of the suggestions (14 percent of participants) concern streamlining what the national church was trying to accomplish, flattening the hierarchal structure, and listening more to congregations, who feel disconnected from the national offices and/or mid councils.

There is also a sizeable number of participants (13 percent) who wish that the PC(USA) would steer clear of politics, liberalism, and secular culture.

What the Church Is Called to Be and Do

We also asked, “What is the church called to be and do in the context of 21st-century American culture?” Although we had hoped that this question would give us some sense of our shared identity as a denomination, many of the 2,763 responses seem to be more prescriptive, somewhat reflecting the responses people gave to the previous question, above, about changes that they would recommend (Figure 14).

Figure 14: What Participants Think the Church Is Called to Be and Do in the 21st Century

Percentage of Participants, n = 2,763

Focus outward 59%

Focus on God/scripture 49%

Inclusive/welcoming/love 27%

Avoid politics/liberalism/secularism 13%

Focus inward 13%

Be creative/relevant 12%

Promote reconciliation/theological diversity 8%

Other 6%

Be more progressive/liberal 5%

Change polity to let congregations leave 4%

Focus on youth 3%

Build community 3%

Ecumenical & interfaith relations 2%

Hold on to traditions 1%

Consequently, the two most frequently appearing themes are once again an outward focus, with 59 percent of the participants mentioning mission, advocacy, disaster, evangelism, and/or being a strong voice to the public as things they’d like to see happening more in the church (and with stronger resolve this time, as only 24 percent had mentioned it in the previous question), and a focus on God/scripture. This featured more prominently too: whereas 19 percent mentioned a focus on God and scripture in the previous question, 49 percent mentioned it here.

Of those who mention this theme, three-quarters (37 percent of all participants) emphasize the need to be biblical (without mentioning anything about the denomination having strayed from the Bible), while one in five contend that we need to get back to the Bible and one in ten say that we need to live Christ-like lives.

Likewise, loving others and being more inclusive and welcoming was lifted as being very important for the church to be and do; 27 percent of the participants mentioned one of these.

 

t

fl

s

qwsS

ufis

tnrco

Once agaitime, which is

Mentioneformation, leaisted these as

We askedstatements for

Some denthe statemminds, opgood.” Mbe used in

We were nquestion, whewhy they madsnarky, or hurSome people

As we wous as a denomfrom other clun viewing the

statistical anal

Fully 79 ptheir commennot give us enrepresentativecaution shouloverall Presby

The Coasking abouspoke signicase to minwho we arebut an expr

The respmany creatithe passion,of the suggewish to be k

in, avoiding ps about the sam

d by an equaladership deves things to do

Our Sh

d participants r the denomin

nominations hment: “God is pen doors.” Aore than a mo

n a similar wa

not disappoinether they thoude the choicesrtful (which woffered two o

Segm

orked throughmination, we busters of Presbe diversity wilyses to ident

percent of thents on the openough informe of Presbyterd be exerciseyterian memb

ommittee on tut change to aificantly abounistry outside e summoned tressed hope fo

ponse to the qve and though energy, and

estions will beknown and un

politics, liberame as the 13

l number of plopment, pastmore of in th

ared Iden

the followingnation:

have short gustill speaking

Additionally totto, these arey to tell the w

nted; after cleught the words they gave; awe saved and or three.

ments with

h the analyses became awarebyterians. Whithin the PC(Utify the relativ

e participantsen-ended que

mation to be carians overall,

ed when makibership.

he Office of tasking responut the place ofthe church anto be. The relior our future.

question abouhtful responseoutlooks amoe projected on

nderstood.

alism, and bowpercent who

participants is tor support, a

he previous qu

ntity: Sugg

g question, ho

uiding statemeg.” The Unitethe Church ofe their mantra

world what set

aning out thed “mantra” waand after remoincluded as a

hin the PC

of the particie of various clhile these “cluUSA). We refve size of each

s clearly fit instions, and thategorized. K, exceptions aing broad com

the General Andents about cf scripture. Ound to welcomiiance and cen

ut a phrase or es—more tha

ong us. Many n the screen a

wing to the sementioned the

an inward foand worshipinuestion).

gestions fo

oping that we

ents. For exaed Methodist f the Brethrenas. If you cous us apart as a

explanationsas a good wooving the ones separate doc

C(USA) an

ipants’ commlusters of indiusters” are inffer to them as h of these seg

nto one of theheir responsesKeep in mind are noted in thmparisons of

Assembly notecall (what is thur identity as ing love, is a

ntrality of scri

mantra that man a thousand

were similaras a way of in

ecular cultureese themes in

ocus, with 13 png community

or a Guidin

would get a l

ample, the UnChurch also hn has “For thuld imagine aa denominatio

s of why peoprd choice, hos that were cl

cument), there

nd What T

ments, lookingividuals who formal and fluthe four segm

gments (Figur

ese four segms to the demothat, while thhe demograp

f the sizes of e

es that when the church cala scriptural csignificant af

ipture is seen

might expressof them. The

r. Throughoutnformally shar

e was mentionn the previous

percent menty support (tho

ng Statem

long list of po

nited Church has a statemehe glory of Ga mantra for thon, what migh

ple didn’t wanow difficult anlearly intendee were still ab

They Wan

g for the commshare particuuid, their idenments within re 15).

ments, based oographic queshese participa

phics section oeach of these

the instrumenlled to be andchurch, calledffirmation abonot only as a

s our Presbyteese brief phrat the General ring our persp

ned (by 12 pes question).

tioning spirituough 17 perce

ment

otential guidin

of Christ is gent: “Open heGod and my nhe PC(USA) tht that look lik

nt to answer thn exercise thised to be funnybout 2,000 mo

nt

mon threads tular values disntification mathe PC(USA)

on a combinastions; 21 perants are someof this report segments to

nt transitionedd do), the respd by scripture out who we a

a legacy from

erian identity ases variouslyAssembly a npectives on ho

ercent this

ual ent had

ng

guided by earts, open neighbors’ that could ke?

he s was, or y or ottos!

that unite stinct ay aid us ), and ran

ation of rcent did ewhat t, and the

d from pondents

in this are and

m our past

drew capture

number ow we

 

P

atprwtha

D

at(b(dtim

F

lso

 

 

Purposeful P

The largeand would preto gain culturapolitics and inremain hopefuwill see that thtime. Others whelping dissenare teaching e

I woudecisions change ag

Disappointed

Though thabandoned, anthose who eith(2) are conflicbetrayed by re(OGA) and thdenominationthe table; that nvolved in po

male (64 perce

Family Faci

These areiberals and co

sisters in Chriongoing dialo

Progressives

st segment amefer that we nal relevance an social actionul that conserhere are diffewould simply nting congregelders (32 perc

uld like to sealmost apolo

gain sometime

d and Disce

he name givennd for some, hher (1) do notcted and thinkecent decisionhe Presbyterian is hostile tow

the liberals inolitics. Aboutent).

ilitators (15 P

peacemakersonservatives. ist who are diogue that wou

s (35 percent

mong the partnarrow our focand our own sn. They are levatives who arent ways to ibe happy if t

gations to leavcent); most of

e PC(USA) bogetically. I doe in the future

rning (19 Pe

n to this segmheld hostage bt like their PCking about leans made at Gean Mission Agward conservan the denomint one-fifth of t

Percent)

s; those who vThey are genstressed by reld help every

t)

ticipants conscus to claim asocietal nicheess tolerant ofare upset withinterpret scripthe conservative the denomif this segmen

be more cleaon't want to he), own that id

ercent)

ment might apby their deno

C(USA) affiliaaving the denoeneral Assemgency (PMA)atives in genenation treat ththis segment

value our theonerally pleaseecent changes

yone stay in th

ists of those wa more progre. Many in thi

f conservativeh the 221st Gepture, and wilives left the Pination with g

nt are female (

ar and stronghave a schismdentity, and b

ppear to be strmination. Theation but are somination. Th

mbly, by stand) on social issueral. They tenhem disparagiare teaching e

ological diverd with the dens. They look the “family,” w

who are mostessive identitys group feel w

e theologies weneral Assemll choose to st

PC(USA), andgrace and dign(63 percent).

g in what it bm but I think hbe proud of th

rong, it truly rey are the mostuck in the dhis segment i

ds taken by theues, and by th

nd to feel that ingly. They aelders (17 per

rsity and wounomination bto national stawhile also pro

tly pleased wiy both for thewe need to gewithin the den

mbly (2014) detay and accepd a few offerenity. About a

believes. Somhaving a clearhat identity. N

reflects how tost displeaseddenomination s mostly conse Office of thheir perceptiothere is little

argue that the rcent); most o

uld prefer recobut worry aboaff for leadersomoting theol

ith the denomological reaso

et more involvnomination. Secisions on mpt the changesed suggestiona third of this

metimes I feelr identity (eveName it and cl

they feel: forsd. This group

for various reservative, and

he General Ason that the room left fordenomination

of this segmen

onciliation beout their brothship in resourlogical divers

 

mination ons and ved in ome

marriage s, over s for segment

l it makes en if it will laim it!

saken, includes easons, or d feels ssembly

r them at n is too nt are

etween hers and rcing an ity and

 

1%

11%

58%

85%

51%

23%

50%

32%

13%

33%

76%

38%

10%

2%

16%

Disappointed andDiscerning

Rooted and Resolute Family Facilitators PurposefulProgressives

Individuals who arenot categorized

Figure 16: Segment by Combined Social and Theological Orientations

Liberal Moderate/mixed Conservative

unity within the denomination. Some are frustrated or angry with their sister and brother congregations who have chosen to leave, seeing it as an “easy way out” or placing undue importance on what they perceive to be secondary issues. This group consists mostly of those who are liberal/progressive. A little fewer than half (42 percent) of this segment are teaching elders; many of this segment are female (53 percent).

Rooted and Resolute (10 Percent)

This group considers their PC(USA) identity to be very important, but feel the denomination has strayed from the Bible and/or gotten too involved in liberal politics. Though unhappy with recent trends, they appear to have no current plans to leave the denomination, preferring to stay and fight for the denomination they believe in. Some believe liberals are merely a vocal minority with disproportionate control of the denomination, and believe that they can convince the denomination to repent and return to the Bible. They tend to prefer a literal reading of scripture and feel that liberals/progressive Presbyterians will see their error and repent, when they are reminded that they’ve turned their backs on God. They tend to think that the denomination should not have diverse theologies, though this group is theologically conservative but socially moderate/mixed. They tend to want to return to an earlier time in which they felt that things were better. About a third of this segment (30 percent) are teaching elders; most of this segment are male (60 percent).

The Unsegmented (21 Percent)

These are the people who do not easily fit in any of the above categories, based on the answers they gave. A little under a third (29 percent) of this segment are teaching elders; most of this segment are female (59 percent).

Figure 16 shows the analyses of the four segments and those we could not fit into one of the four segments, comparing three groups: (1) those who are both socially and theologically liberal, (2) those who are both socially and theologically conservative, and those who are both socially and theologically moderate or are mixed on the social and theological scales. Those who did not provide information on their orientation are omitted from this analysis.

It is clear here that when combining the social and theological orientation scales, the Disappointed and Discerning segment is the most prominently conservative (76 percent), and the Energized and Hopeful seekers of the Common Good segment is the most prominently liberal (85 percent). The Rooted and Resolute segment is more moderate/mixed and conservative (50 percent and 38 percent, respectively), though they are more theologically conservative than socially conservative. The Seekers of the Common Good and Unsegmented are mostly liberal (58 percent and 52 percent, respectively) and moderate/mixed (32 percent and 33 percent, respectively). There does not appear to be much difference between the Unsegmented and the Reconcilers when

 

cm

o

astt

tadt

as

“maLc

tidprawAw

ntcu

combining socmoderate/mix

Both are mor conservativ

Though thadditional anasee if answersthree groups: theologically

Liberals, cthey are Presbamong those fdenominationthat they have

There wasand that this osupporting the

The disag“helping our nmission and eas a form of raLGBTQ), conconservative t

This projeto consider asndividuals an

denominationpleased at the responded to tanalyzing morwere heard; vAnd we want wonderful ide

Although natural path tothey talked abcame to underunderstanding

These foare meant toCOGA’s hoand the uniq

cial and theolxed members

more liberal sve theological

The C

he four segmealyses to deters to each of th(1) those whoconservative,

conservativesbyterian, and wfor whom bel

nal affiliation ie specific issu

s a general agoutward focuse church and

greement tendneighbor” in tvangelism. Aadical welcom

nservatives tentheologies.

ect sought to p they weigh m

nd groups withn in the 21st ce

overwhelminthis instrumenre than 18,00oices of the cthem to know

eas and even t

we didn’t ento follow whenbout what it mrstand that thegs of scriptura

four “clusters”o give us a deope that the idque witness w

logical orientaas well.

ocially than tlly.

Common D

ents identifiedrmine where t

he questions do are both soc, and (3) those

s, and moderawhy they spelonging to PCin general is s

ues with the PC

greement that s is what we sits leaders, an

ds to lie in whterms of socia

Also, whereas wme and inclusnd to focus on

provide informatters of purhin the PC(Uentury. It is oung number of nt, and many 0 comments,

contented and w that we apptheir frustratio

ter into this pn we were cod

means to be biese different gal interpretatio

” are not meaneeper understadentification owe share in ou

ation; both ar

theologically,

Denomina

d among the sthey do come

differ based oncially and theoe who are bot

ates all agree tcifically valu

C(USA) is notsimply not imC(USA).

“helping ourshould be focund being a bea

hat these goalsal action and when liberals

sion (and are mn more genera

Summar

mation for usrpose, functio

USA) to discerur hope that w

f responses to thanked us fowe believe ththe disconten

preciate their hons.

project intendiding the data iblical, to be igroups withinon, and differ

nt to divide uanding idea ofof these groupur denominatio

re a little over

though they

ator: On W

study participe to some agren liberal/consologically libth socially an

that communue their PC(USt important. L

mportant to the

r neighbor” is using on as a acon of light

s and actions advocacy, cons talk of beingmore likely toal welcome, o

ry Comme

se by commison, mission anrn some consewe have accoma call for a ch

or opening thehat voices of Pnted; voices ohonesty, their

ing to categorand began to

inclusive, or tn the church hrent sets of va

us into theologf what our PCps will assist uon. 

r one-half libe

are still more

What We D

pants don’t seeeement. We aservative orieberal, (2) thosed theological

nity, theology,SA) affiliatio

Liberals are mem, whereas c

something thchurch, alongand love in th

actually meannservatives teg a beacon of o specify certor a more spe

ents

ssioners at thend ministry, aensus on whamplished bothhurchwide coe conversatioPresbyteriansof new Presbyr creativity, an

rize Presbyterrealize that p

to follow Jesuhave very diffalues.

gical or ecclesC(USA) familus in seeing a

eral, but with

e liberal theolo

DO Agr

em to agree oalso did someentation. These who are botlly moderate O

, and polity aron. However,

more likely to conservatives

hat we as a deg with being bhe world.

n. Whereas liend to think of light and lovtain marginaliecific goal of w

e 222nd Geneand to provideat we are calleh of these task

onversation: aon to the whols from nearly yterians and lind their willin

rians into segpeople meant us. We began ferent worldv

siological camly portrait looanew the brea

large minorit

ogically then

ee

on much, we de additional anse analyses coth socially anOR who are m

re key reasonthere is a diffsay that s are more lik

enomination dbiblical, nurtu

iberals tend toof it in terms ove, they tend tized groups suwelcoming

eral Assemblye opportunitieed to be and dks. We were v

about 3,427 pele church. Aftevery state an

ifelong Presbyngness to sha

gments, it seemdifferent thinto see pattern

views, differen

mps. Instead, oks like. It is adth of our div

ties of

neutral

did some nalysis to ompare nd mixed.

ns why ference

kely to say

do well, uring and

o think of of to frame it uch as

y (2016) es for do as a very eople

fter nd region yterians.

are their

med a ngs when ns and nt

they

versity

 

aThe Gene

a national ch

The Cominsight to Re(U.S.A.). If o

We are aWord; to treafor justice. T

There isagencies of tnotes a healtvitality of wicongregation

We are nthe need of th

We knowThough we kwe have a fuconfident vie

COGA agaiPerry Chan

eral Assembhurch that be

mmittee on theesearch Serviceour church was

a blessed and fasure the role o

There is a wides

s an urgent sensthe church—vethy restiveness itness in our nans and our com

not satisfied whe Spirit’s wor

w the limits ofknow that we puture that can gew of God’s ab

in wants to exng from PMA

bly has beforst suits us m

e Office of the Ges. It was clear s only fueled b

fortunate peoplof laity and clespread appreci

se that our effoenerable and emto reform our

ation and arounmmitment to he

with our hospitark that we may

f this self-portrpresently “see dgrow out of the biding Grace to

xpress its thanResearch Ser

re itself a momoving forwa

General Assemin all responsey passion there

le who have a hergy together; thation for Refor

orts must now amerging, as an structures and nd the world. Tlping others.

ality to all Gody become a mor

ait and know, tdimly,” we findstrengths of th

oward the PC(U

nks for partnervices and for

onumental taard, but also

mbly wants to tes that all peope is enough to c

heritage that sthat privileges trmed Theology

address the neeexpression of perhaps even o

There is a comm

’s children bothre diverse peop

too, the ever-chd contained wihe past and be cUSA).

ership with Dr additional in

ask: not only what our id

thank everyoneple care about tcarry us well in

till inspires us tthoughtful discy and how it ha

eds of congregfaithfulness toour Presbyteriamon desire to f

th inside and ouple who feel em

hanging natureithin the responchastened by it

Dr. Deborah Cnsights from D

y to think abodentity shoul

e who gave thotheir Presbyterinto the future.

to be hearers acernment and cas shaped us a

gations, mid couo the Lordship oan culture in sefind ways to su

utside the churmpowered and

e of our churchnses the hope ats errors. We h

Coe, Dr. AngiDr. John Bru

out the strucd be going f

ought, prayer, aian Church

and doers of thecompels us to achurch.

uncils, and of Christ. COGervice to a reneupport healthy

rch and recognd treasured.

h and the worldand convictionhold a high and

ie Andriot, anueggemann.

cture for forward.

and

e act

GA ewed

ize

d. n that d

nd Dr.