David Ewart

Reading the Year Book

2013-04-05T17:44:11-07:00

What Our Statistics Tell Us about the World We Live In

I've created a PowerPoint presentation which I hope will help us to understand why efforts at congregational re-vitalization may not have had the hoped for, long term results.

There are many ways of trying to understand the world we live in. Within the United Church, our concern for social justice means that we often use economic and political tools: empire and colonialism for example.

But when it comes to understanding the world our congregations are living in, I think it is more helpful to borrow from the world of arts, culture and community-based organizations. The particular changes in society that impact them also impact the church because we share many characteristics.

Like them, we too cannot exist without volunteers and a paying live audience / members.

And so this presentation offers a way of understanding how changes in our society have had – and are having – a dramatic impact on volunteering, belonging to communities, and attending live events.

Presentation Table of Contents

Introduction Slide 1
A New Thing: Recording Technology Slide 7
Another New Thing or Two: The Internet – In Our Hands Slide 10
A Fourth New Thing: The Touch Screen Slide 12
New Things Create New Ways of Being Human Slide 13
How Does Being A Congregation Compare with These New Things? Slide 15
Three Populations, Three Conversations Slide 24
Impacts of Not Having a Shared Understanding
of This New Technology Slide 31
How Has the New Technology Impacted the Church? Slide 35
Worship Attendance Decline Is Not Sustainable Slide 54
Responding to Changes in the Culture Slide 65
New Questions for Thinking about This Touch Screen Space Slide 69
Framework for Planning the Futures of Our Congregations Slide 77
Two Pearls of Wisdom Slide 83
Let’s Continue the Conversation Slide 86

Presentation run time is 25 minutes.

Click here for the script that accompanies the PowerPoint presentation.

Click here to download the PowerPoint presentation without my narration (3.6 Mb).

Click here to download the PowerPoint presntation with my narration (16.7 Mb).

Click here to download the video mp4 file (146 Mb).

Click here to watch the PowerPoint presentation on YouTube.

David Ewart,
www.davidewart.ca

The United Church? Yes.

2013-03-15T16:17:35-07:00

The Uniform Church? Not so much.

I believe one of the challenges facing our church is that while we may be United we are most definitely not Uniform.

We all know that each congregation and Pastoral Charge has its own unique history and context. But because we function as a national church, and only set policy nationally, it means that we expect all Pastoral Charges to be uniform in their ability to function.

This expectation in terms of statements of faith, worship practices, and social outreach encourages the lively conversation that makes us United.

But this expectation in terms of personnel policies – salaries, allowances and benefits; and organizational issues – board structures, leadership, etc. – can be a real burden and stumbling block for many congregations and PC’s because we are not Uniform.

In 2011:

1 Point PC’s were 70% of the total number of PC’s
2 Point PC’s were 21%
3 Point PC’s were 7%, and
4 or more Point PC’s were 2%

But as the following chart shows, for almost every Year Book line, 1 Point Pastoral Charges have a greater share of our people and financial resources.

But this is just the tip of the ice berg, because when we look at the differences within 1 Point Pastoral Charges, we find that there is a large difference between those with the highest worship attendance and those with the lowest.

In fact, the 10% (154 congregations) with the largest worship attendance have the same people and financial resources as the 50% (774 congregations) with the lowest attendance. That is to say, a congregation in the top 10% has, on average, 5 times the resources of one in the bottom 50%. The table below gives a sample of what this looks like:

I would suggest that the situations congregations face are so varied that we need to significantly diversify our expectations, resources, and strategies. And this can NOT be coordinated nationally.

For example:

We may need a national pension and group insurance plan. But do we really need national salary, housing, travel, book, continuing education, sabbatical, secretarial, and telephone policies? Could these not be delegated to the Conferences? And thereby be more responsive to local contexts?
Could we not delegate to Presbytery the authority to approve a congregation’s governance structure without any reference to Manual requirements? And thereby allow for the recognition of forms of ministry which we now cannot conceive of?
Could we not differentiate between requirements to belong to a national Order of Ministry, and requirements for commissioning and ordination and give Conference the sole authority to determine those whom it will ordain and commission? And thereby allow Conferences to commission or ordain local leaders while also maintaining a standard for nationally recognized members of an Order of Ministry?
Could we not establish organizations for connecting congregations in similar contexts for mutual sharing, support, and strategizing? A synod for the top 10% and one for the bottom 50%? As well as ones for those in between, and ones for multi-point Pastoral Charges? We desperately need think tanks and supports that recognize the differing circumstances for ministry.

We are in a situation where the surrounding culture has changed so much – and in ways that are the antithesis of what we do – congregate – that no one can say for sure what is the correct response. Rather, what is needed, is the kind of flexible, local, contextualized support for experimentation. Including the experiment of being a traditional congregation.

David Ewart,
www.davidewart.ca

Click here for an easy to print or email Adobe PDF version of this post.

Permission is granted for non-profit use of these materials.
Please acknowledge source as , "David Ewart, www.davidewart.ca, 2013."

Why I'm NOT Returning My Microsoft Surface RT

2012-11-02T12:38:34-07:00

Two days in and I've changed my mind: I'm NOT returning my Microsoft Surface RT.

I certainly had some of the same frustrations as have been reported elsewhere: http://ozar.me/2012/10/why-im-returning-my-microsoft-surface-rt.

But as I plowed through the learning curve as a first time ever user of Wndows 8 - the new layout, the touch gestures, etc., and did all the updates - I am now a fan.

Spent yesterday doing something I have never - and will never - been able to do on my iPad. Took notes using MS Word will listening to a pod cast - with both apps visible in Snap View.

Folks considering any device running RT need to know that this is NOT the full-meal deal. But frankly, the extra cost puts light weight ultra books out of my reach right now, and I'll live with the things I can't do on the RT. And as more apps come online, including Office 365, I'm thinking me and my RT are gonna be fine.

I really like the size and light weight of the Surface RT; the type pad works beautifully for me; and the seamless integration of touch with point-and-click and a physical keyboard is a bonus that is going to diminish iPad's appeal - IMHO.

What's not to love about finally being to do real work on all my Office Word, Excel, and PP documents on a cool tablet?

Oh, and as for complaints about the kick stand and the camera angle. My first observation would be that no product out there has an infinitely adjustable AND reliably solid stand. All of them require using whatever is at hand to make needed adjustments. And maybe I'm just unusually short, but with the Surface on a standard height 30" table and me on a standard height chair - it works for me. And I think it will work well for Skype calls around a conference table - which is what I suspect it was designed for. But if you're looking for a camera to take high quality photos - look elsewhere. This is a "good enough" for Skype camera.

There are other devices besides Surface RT out there, so check them out. But I can recommend the Surface.

David Ewart.

United Church Glass Ceiling?

2012-09-11T21:57:00-07:00

Vancouver journalist, Doug Todd, called me the other day to ask about women in ordered ministry in the United Church of Canada.

I had served on a task group that had examined clergy demographics and knew that the female / male ratio had recently become slightly more women than men, ie., 51-49.

I couldn't recall the exact figures, but with roughly 50% of all active clergy over the age of 55 - and therefore due to retire in the next 10 years - this ratio would become higher as roughly 80% of retirees were male, and 80% of new ministers were female.

The conversation went on to wonder how women were doing in ministry - not just personally - but in the collective consciousness and life of the United Church. That's a tougher question to answer.

But it got us wondering how many women are the senior / lead / coordinating minister in larger, multi-staff congregations?

I volunteered to do some research on the 25 United Church congregations with the highest reported average weekly attendance at worship. (That's Line 20 in The Year Book statistics. Two were tied for 25th, so I actually looked at 26 congregations.)

There were 3 cases where there were multiple staff of women and men, but position titles were not given.

Of the remaining 23, how many would you guess had a woman listed as the senior / lead / coordinating minister?

11 or 12 would be the expected answer, given the overall ratio of 51-49.

The actual answer is ... wait for it ... 1. That's right - one.

Ouch.

David Ewart,
www.davidewart.ca

Permission is granted for non-profit use of these materials provide credit is acknowledged as, "David Ewart, www.davidewart.ca."

Asking the Right Questions

2012-09-07T14:47:25-07:00

Coming January 2013

Conversations about Leadership:

Asking the Right Questions about Membership

After decades of trying to reverse the trend of declining membership in congregations I have served, I have finally realized that we were not asking the right questions about membership, and so we tried to solve the wrong problem.

Beginning in January 2013, I will launch a series of video clips, PowerPoint slides, and presentations to spark conversations about membership in the United Church of Canada.

When given the right information and invited to imagine new ways of understanding the past, I believe in the power of conversation to unlock new possibilities for the future.

We are a church that was formed by those willing to leave the beloved familiar for the desired unknown. Where that spirit still lives, there is hope.

I will be available to lead thought provoking conversations with your congregation, Presbytery or Conference beginning January, 2013. Please use the email link in the left-hand side bar to contact me for more information.

David Ewart,
www.davidewart.ca

Margaret Wente Interview

2012-07-28T10:15:56-07:00

Wheatley's United Church of Canada (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As with all interviews, the interviewee (me in this case) does not get to control what is finally reported. Longer conversations are shortened to the sound bite; context is lost; etc., etc. But I can say I enjoyed the conversation - which also covered topics not included in the final article, and that on the whole Margaret did a fair job reporting on it. Of course, I am not the only source for her article, I don't always agree with her opinions in the article, and I wouldn't frame the discussion about membership the way she has.

But the decline of volunteer membership based organizations, and the decline of liberal organizations in particular is, in my not so humble opinion, a topic that I wish had a higher profile in our United Church.

If the decline - and aging - of our membership had occurred in 5 years instead of five decades, I'm pretty sure there would be a more widespread awareness that our decline in membership is a mission-critical crisis (as in, without members, we have no mission).

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/the-collapse-of-the-liberal-church/article4443228/

David Ewart,
www.davidewart.ca

United Church of Canada Mission and Service Fund Trends - 2010

2012-06-04T16:03:06-07:00

While there are no easy answers about how to moderate historic trends, a careful examination of what are the factors that may have influenced those trends is a helpful place to start.

Click here to open an easy to email or print Adobe PDF version of this post.

What a difference inflation makes when trying to figure out what has happened to historic funds like the M&S¹.

Consider the following chart which shows the historic amount received from Pastoral Charges:

That looks like a steady rise reaching a peak about 1987 of $28,400,000 and then holding steady to the present $28,000,000 in 2010.

And since the number of Identified Givers to M&S has dropped from 268,000 to 116,000 over that same period, it looks as though today’s donors give an average of $240 compared with $105 in 1987. A significantly increased commitment.

But when the historic data is adjusted for inflation based on the CPI for 2010, here’s what happens:

Now we see the effect of Depression during the 1930’s, and the growth of the post-World War II period, peaking in 1964 at $62,700,000 (in 2010’s dollar values).

And by today’s values, the M&S has declined from the 1964 peak by $34,700,000 or 55%. This data helps explain the inability of the M&S Fund to maintain the level of programs from the 1960’s – or 1980’s or 90’s for that matter.

The average 1987 donation is $180 compared with today’s $240. Still a notable increased commitment.

When the UCW was formed in 1962, donations to M&S from its groups were also tracked as shown in the chart below.

Including the donations from the UCW, the total M&S has declined from a peak of $75,700,000 in 1964 to $29,800,000 in 2010; a decline of $45,900,000 or 60%. Ouch.

And if the trend for the past 10 years does not change, UCW offerings for M&S will reach zero in 2022, and the Total M&S will be $19,000,000 in 2025; a further decline of $10,800,000 or 35%.

The chart below shows the number of Identifiable Givers to Local Expenses (Line 18) and to M&S (Line 19). The shape of the graphs is similar to other data for attendance, total givings, etc.

The number of Givers to Local Expenses rose from 265,000 in 1945 to a peak of 543,000 in 1961. The number in 2010 is 258,000 a decline of 285,000 or 52%. If the trend for the past ten years does not change, the number in 2025 will be 166,000, a further loss of 92,000 or 36%.

The number of Givers to M&S rose from 144,000 in 1945 to a peak of 374,000 in 1962. The number in 2010 is 116,000, a decline of 258,000 or 69%. If the trend for the past ten years does not change, the number in 2025 will be 63,000, a further loss of 53,000 or 46%.

While the Total Raised for All Purposes by Congregational Givings (Line 32A) has also been steadily declining since 1964, we can see from the following chart that in 1982 the M&S Received from the Pastoral Charge (Exclusive of UCW) (Line 36) fell below 16% of the Total Raised to 11% in 2010. If the trend for the past 10 years does not change, the percentage will decline to 8% in 2025.

The chart below comparing Identifiable Givers to M&S (Line 19) as a percentage of Identifiable Givers to Local Expenses (Line 18) shows that at its peak in 1962 there were 7 M&S Givers for every 10 Givers to Local Expenses. This has been followed by decades of decline mixed with decades of holding steady. The ratio in 2010 is 4.5 M&S Givers for every 10 Givers to Local Expenses. If the trend for the past 10 years does not change, this ratio will decline to 4.0 M&S Givers for every 10 Givers to Local Expenses.

In spite of the overall declines of the amount raised and the number of Identifiable Givers to M&S, the chart below shows that the M&S Received from the Pastoral Charge (Exclusive of UCW) (Line 36) divided by the number of Identifiable Givers to M&S (Line 19) has risen from just under $190 in the 1990’s to $240 in 2010 an increase of $50 or 26%. If the trend for the past ten years does not change, this amount will rise to $300 in 2010, a further increase of $60 or 20%.

While there are no easy answers to reversing historic trends, the above data points to two potential areas for exploration:

Why are fewer Local Givers also giving to M&S? What could be done to reverse this trend?
Why are Pastoral Charges raising a smaller percentage of Total Raised for All Purposes by Congregational Givings that is for M&S? What could be done to reverse this trend?

David Ewart,
www.davidewart.ca

¹ All data is from The United Church of Canada Year Book.

Permission is granted for non-profit use of these materials provided credit is acknowledged as, "David Ewart, www.davidewart.ca."

United Church Mission and Service Fund Trends - 2010

2012-05-30T11:40:21-07:00

This post has been significantly updated.

Click here to see the new post.

United Church Financial Trends - 2010

2012-05-29T15:22:45-07:00

Click here for an easy to print or email Adobe PDF version of this post.

From 1965 highs to the present, United Church of Canada people demographics have all trended downward¹:

And yet, as the chart below shows, by and large, the Total Amount Raised for All Purposes has not dropped significantly:

The Total Amount did decline from 1964 to 1976, from $436,400,000 to $363,000,000, but regained this loss to reach $446,400,000 in 1987. In 2010, the Total Amount Raised was $393,800,000 a reduction of $52,600,000 or -12%.

What can also been seen from the chart is that the amount raised from Congregational Givings follows the pattern of the Total Amount Raised until 1987, and then begins a slightly faster rate of decline: from $332,900,000 in 1987 to $262,600,000 in 2010; a reduction of $70,300,000 or -21%. Whereas Identified Local Givers declined from 459,900 to 257,800; a change of -202,100 or -44% in this same period. So while the overall declines are worrisome, one piece of good news is that the amount per local giver has risen from $725 to $1,020.

The amount raised that is identified as from United Church women has declined from $49,200,000 in 1964 to $14,011,000 in 2010; a change of -$35,189,000 or -72% which parallels the change in United Church women’s groups membership.

However, whereas Congregational Givings and the UCW accounted for 92% of the Total Amount Raised in 1965, by 2010 that had fallen to 70%. The difference being made up by “Other Organizations, Sources, and Means” which has grown from $31,930,000 in 1965 to $117,200,000 in 2010; an increase of $85,270,000 or 267%.

“Other” is a large category that includes fowl suppers, choir concerts, and thrift sales. But I suspect the largest contributions are coming from rental and investment income. And while there is good news in having this extra income from rentals and investments to support our ministries, the danger is that this income masks the loss of people participating in the life of the congregation.

Rental and investment income allows a congregation to actually become non-sustainable as far as its people participation is concerned. There is a very real danger, especially in urban areas, for congregations to be able to continue to pay their bills while in fact the number of people participating in the life of the congregation has ceased to be viable.

The danger of the present trends can be seen if we ask, “What will the average Pastoral Charge be like in 2025 if the trends for the past 10 years continue unchanged?”

For our 100th Anniversary, the average for each of our 2,000 Pastoral Charges will be:

90 Resident Members
11 Average Weekly Worship attenders
60 Local Givers giving $1,920 each
15 M&S Givers giving $575 each
6 UCW members
10 Sunday School members
Zero Baptisms, Marriages, and Professions of Faith
Raising a total of $210,000 from Congregational Givings of $115,200, UCW givings of $4,100 and Other of $90,700 – 43% of the Total.

David Ewart,
www.davidewart.ca

------
¹ All data is from The United Church of Canada Year Book. Data has been rounded. Historical financial data has been adjusted for inflation based on the 2010 CPI.

------
Permission is granted for non-profit use of these materials provided credit is acknowledged as, "David Ewart, www.davidewart.ca."

The World Changed in 1957 … Or Maybe It Was 1958

2012-05-25T13:45:38-07:00

In hindsight, it often looks as though the world changed for the United Church of Canada in 1965. That was the year membership reached what turned out to be its peak of 1,064,000.

But signs of the cultural tsunami that would change Canada's religious landscape actually began to be evident in 1957 and 1958. These are the years when the first-born of the Baby Boom Generation graduated from Grade 6. And these are the years when lasting trends in membership first began to appear – again.

The United Church tracks 2 ways of adding to its membership and 2 ways of removing from its membership:

Adding by:

Profession of Faith – Persons who have never been a member of any other church. Typically these are teens who have been raised within the United Church.
Received by Certificate or Otherwise – Typically these are adults who are transferring their membership from another church.

Removing by:

Death
Removing by Certificate or Otherwise – Typically these are adults who are moving to another church, or persons that the Session has lost contact with or has otherwise decided that they have ceased to be a member.

Apart from death, the other 3 are all reflective of demographic and cultural changes that take place in Canada. And all of these seemed to have significant changes in 1945, and then began to correct themselves in 1957 or 1958.

Being received – or removed – by certificate reflects life choices and circumstances of adults. And from 1945 both of these increased to peaks 54,700 received, and 63,000 removed in 1957.

However, the net loss of members in this way was more than made up by new members being added by Profession of Faith. New members joining the church grew from 25,500 in 1945 to what turned out to be the peak of 41,700 in 1958.

It is important to remember that this data is not about the Baby Boomers – it is about their mothers and fathers. After a decade of poverty of the Dirty Thirties and six years of World War, Canadians entered two decades of marrying, moving, and having babies – and a significant part of their new life was bringing their young families to church. Sunday School enrollment rose from 474,000 in 1945 to 731,000 in 1958.

But in 1957 and 1958, just as the first-born of the Baby Boom Generation began to graduate from Grade 6, their parents began to "graduate" from church.

Whereas these parents had driven the rise in church membership in the decade following World War II, instead of continuing to go to church and being joined by their children as they completed the first years of Sunday School, the phenomenon that we still see today happened then:

Parents attend church in support of their children's religious education. But once the basic years are completed and the children graduate from Grade 6, often the children and their parents stop attending church.

The response to the hardships of the Thirties and the war resulted in a boom that many of us in the church mistook as a trend.

If in fact there was a 15 year window of opportunity to truly entrench the value of life-long attending and belonging to a church in the lives of young adults and their children – that opportunity was lost.

And instead, at the first opportunity, the longer-standing utilitarian value of attending and belonging to church when needed and useful re-asserted itself.

I actually do not disparage in any way this utilitarian approach. This is after all what it means to be of service to others.

However, the boom from 1945 to 1957 or 1958 blinded those of us in the church to properly understand and respond to the wider culture.

Because we had been so busy all those years with the hordes of new people thronging through the front door without even being asked, we hadn't noticed the steady stream of people leaving through the back door.

When the boom ended and people continued to leave as they had always done – we mistakenly thought the problem was us.

And we've spent – no wasted – 50 years trying every new program or gimmick to renew and revitalize our churches. But it wasn't us; it was just people doing what they had always done – being who they had always been – coming to church when and if it was needed.

The problems this has created for those of us who do cherish life-long attending and belonging to a church are:

We haven't a clear idea or plan for encouraging others to also cherish life-long attending and belonging to a church. We just take it for granted and assume others will too.
Cherishing life-long attending and belonging to a church is not the reason for attending and belonging to a church. We too often and too easily forget this. We get busy with the many pleasant and necessary activities that keep our churches good places to attend and belong to – and forget that the single purpose of the church is to love the world.
We have inherited and continue to maintain buildings and budgets that were created for the boom. They will kill us if we don't soon figure out points 1 and 2 above.

David Ewart,
www.davidewart.ca

Permission is granted for non-profit use of these materials provided credit is acknowledged as, "David Ewart, www.davidewart.ca."

Click here for an easy to email or print Adobe PDF version of this post.