Is it wrong to think that a big contributing factor here is the education levels required of clergy? Higher education is pretty consistently correlated to political liberalism and I think you see similar gaps between clergy and laity in evangelical churches and denominations that require a high level of education for their clergy. Anecdotally, I found that the more educated I got, the more my appreciation for complexity grew, which makes it hard to be a card-carrying conservative. It makes it hard to be a card-carrying progressive, too, in my opinion, but it seems to me that the Democratic Party in its current form has more capacity to handle complexity than the Republican Party. I'd probably be one of those registered independents if I was American instead of Canadian!
It would be really interesting to tease out the difference within the UMC of what is considered "clergy". I would predict a bit of a divide between licensed local pastors and elders because of the seminary requirement (seminary being, I would assume, a liberalizing influence).
Also, these were between 22 and 23, so kind of mid-split for the UMC, right? Be interesting to see these same numbers in 5 years or so.
I was wondering the same thing. In my circles, there's a pretty big difference of worldview between those with a four-year college degree and those without one! Still interesting to see that it's not like a PhD is the thing that makes the difference though, Ryan - thanks for that!
I bet this is a factor of the current political polarization of society....way easier to get along with your conservative-leaning congregation if you tell them you are an Independent and, thus, vote your conscience. IMO, anyway.
I bet this is a factor of the current political polarization of society....way easier to get along with your conservative-leaning congregation if you tell them you are an Independent and, thus, vote your conscience. IMO, anyway.
It would be interesting to explore two other questions: 1) clergy tend to be in a low pay/high education profession. Doesn't that tend to be the most left leaning element? Are their views typical for that element? (i.e., social workers, journalists, etc).
2) While the UCC has a divergence between clergy and laity, the denomination also leaves the congregation in (total?) control of the selection of the minister. The UMC has less divergence, yet the minister is appointed by the bishop, right?
For what it's worth, I think this boils down to two well-intentioned steps, and a third self-reinforcing stage we're still in: first, the Flexner Report in 1910 & the Carnegie Foundation in 1918 began to systematize higher education from medical schools on down to any post-secondary institution, with credit hours and standards for granting degrees (there's a slightly earlier push to do all this with high school diplomas & Normal school licensure for secondary teachers which feeds into this from the 1870s to 1894). One big change that came with TIAA support for pensions was the adoption of relatively objective criteria for not just credit hours, but the faculty who taught those hours, which culminated in the expectation of terminal degrees, a debate for another day. But it meant that college presidents and professors weren't just well-read clergy after the 1920s, a major change. Before that, clergy shaped colleges; afterwards, the trend began to operate in the other direction. In part because...
Secondly, other Protestant bodies followed their socially more established Anglican/Episcopal & Presbyterian fellows in both establishing, and increasingly expecting, a higher education credential for ministry, among Methodists, Lutherans, Congregationalists, and even Baptists, slowly ticking over from an A.B. or B.D. to the modern "norm" of M.Divs. from the 1920s through 2000. What quietly took place in that transition was the assumptions around ministerial formation moved from the more local judicatory (conference, diocese, classis, region, etc.) to the divinity school/seminary experience. After all, it was residential, multi-year, and in a sort of worshiping community, so of course judicatories could assume your ministerial formation took place there, and was simply validated by the judicatory processes upon completion.
The third and final stage of this development was the shift of seeing the Order of Ministry model for most Protestants, especially mainline bodies, into a more academic model of what the "local scholar of religion" was to the congregation they served, and within the middle judicatory they had leadership roles in. Sabbatical expectations, office hours, professional ethics with more of a higher education frame than a pastoral set of assumptions . . . and for years I heard judicatory officials, when asked about compensation norms, say "it should be equivalent to your local middle school principal." Clergy began to see themselves as a sort of junior faculty in a dispersed college of practicioners.
Without rancor, I think the adoption of a largely higher education model for ministerial roles and responsibilities and compensation resulted in clergy seeing themselves very much as in a professorial role -- at a time when higher education faculties were veering strongly to the left. [Insert 3,000 words about the legacy of Vietnam and draft deferments HERE.] That model and some of our other institutional assumptions internally became a self-reinforcing race to "who can out-progressive the next person" in ministerial circles, and within middle judicatories.
That upward ratchet of education and self-understanding in higher education terms, more than within an internally referenced ecclesial model, created an environment where a more progressive world view is not only supported, it has become expected and even reinforced (if not obliquely mandated) within ordination review processes.
Seems like the seven sister followed the same obsession with degrees that other service industries have found themselves in. I know when I took classes about HR, we learned abou degree requirement justification lawsuits where companies couldn't prove that a high school degree was required for some positions. Churches wouldn't fall under that legal scrutiny but they seem to have called for the same cultural higher ed pressures.
When I studied Higher Education some years ago, a common assumption was that the culture of faculty and administrators in HE drives liberalism, when data shows student's increasing liberalism is driven by student culture. So intuitive once you hear it, seems like it should have been obvious from the start. Even faculty radically overestimate the impact they have on students. Student culture impacts not just thinking but social behavior to a point no professor will probably see in the classroom.
This might imply that the shifts in higher education to examine aren't so much changes in administration or educational approach, but what impacts students.
There definitely was a "professionalization" of clergy...as you are noting here.
For all the reasons you're noting here too.
I'll thrown on one more: A desire by adjudicatory bodies to prevent (or at least reduce) the total number of "clergy scandals."
The professionalization process your describing also had, as a goal, the desire to weed out narcissistic and power hungry individuals who might abuse their power...and their parishioners.
Along with the other reasons you're noting we should also note this one too: And, most definitely, not apologize for it.
Not apologize, no, but . . . you are absolutely correct here, but the complication in the narrative is we started piling professionalization costs onto ordination processes and standing verification just as the effective income for clergy started curving down. And I think when regions (our middle judicatory in the Disciples of Christ) start adding onto the expectation of a residential M.Div. etc. the costs of CPE, spiritual direction, or ongoing courses for standing, we're backing into a meat grinder of a problem. As a Commission on Ministry member & team leader in three regions, I've defended the costs of psych evals and background checks for years, and am glad we added these things to our pre-1980 process of "who knows this candidate, and are they okay?" But I do think we may be overdoing the professionalization emulation for ministry with what some regions are putting forward as requirements.
I 100% agree with your last statement. And I hope we can enter a time where, even if it's out of a practical need to make things easier, we're re-evaluating this.
I've long said: "it takes as long to become a UMC pastor as it does a medical doctor...take a guess which one most folks will choose?"
Now...that was before major changes to medicine which have made it less attractive too..but you get my drift....
Actually, it's probably important to name that ALL professions have made their barriers to entry more onerous in the modern era. I think of a book by William May that clearly pre-saged this called "Beleaguered Rulers: The Public Obligation of the Professional."
This is THIRTY year old book that, even back then, noted how much under assault "professionals" felt from both outside and within...it feels super prescient now.
ALL OF THIS SAID...
In North Texas, we are...right now....dealing with a rash of very public sex and $$ scandals...almost all of which began in pastor-led megachurches without any denominational accountability.
I think we can make a credible argument to our culture: Yes....we are slow and boring. But there is a REASON we are slow and boring. Because thoughtfulness and caution are important when choosing leaders.
That seems like a pretty nice message for the broader culture at exactly this moment.
I, too, thought about the '70s issue that led many into the ministry and also, sadly, into education, which has never recovered from this issue.
For the 3-4 years those unqualified and unprepared guys) were "teaching" (more like showing up in a classroom) the whole profession suffered....I know, cuz I had to deal with these jerks!!!!).
Not surprising at all. In every institution, religious or commercial or educational, leaders are strictly required to be orthodox Democrats. Workers and customers are evenly split, MOSTLY not interested in the whole pointless mess of political arguing.
One number does surprise me. Based on pastors and seminarians I knew a long time ago, I figured that nearly all Episcopal pastors would be female by now. But they're not significantly different from others.
Something that struck me about that first graph is the distribution of answers for clergy vs laity, with more clergy landing in other categories than Democratic and Republican compared to laity. I wonder whether this also contributes to the picture of differences - perhaps clergy are less likely to see their political affiliation as an either/or but instead with more complexity.
What struck me was the role of Independent in the initial graphs. I find myself wondering if that identification is tied into a desire to be open to both sides, to not claim a label. This might be speaking to their sense of spiritual vocation.
The preponderance of people DEFECTING from the mainline laity ranks since the 1970s, toward flavors of none, are defecting in part because they think the mainline is too stodgy and too much stuck in the orbit of Christianity that leans rightward. (Not that there aren't other issues too.) There are plenty of churches on the rightward side of this spectrum for a minority to defect to if that is what they want-- but not as many on the leftward side of the spectrum. In this context it is not entirely clear, and probably varies from case to case, whether the gaps you are trying to quantify are making things better or worse for mainline churches.
Good point. These results are AFTer these mainline churches have shrunk because conservatives leave or don't join. And there *still* are a lot of Republicans!
Eric, If I understand your comment correctly, it may be almost the opposite of what I was trying to suggest. The mainline needs to close a gap, more with people defecting in a LIBERAL direction than a conservative one. To do this it needs to stake out a space and "brand" LEFT of the centrist evangelicals and ex-evangelicals with which it often overlaps. The common sense that the mainline naturally has to triangulate toward its right flank is a major DRIVER of the problem of declining numbers, not a solution to its problems. Granted this can cause lose-lose choices at times. Nevertheless (adjusting for case to case calculus because it's complicated) on balance these traditions may well need MORE, not less, of a gap between their leadership and their Republican parishioners.
I agree with your basic theory here. There are, indeed, very few left or center/left churches and denominations of size. This is the line that I agree with most:
"The common sense that the mainline naturally has to triangulate toward its right flank is a major DRIVER of the problem of declining numbers, not a solution to its problems."
exactly.
What our culture has failed to account for in all the conversation about mainline decline is that successive mainlines...Episcopals, Presbyterians, and United Methodist in succession....were fighting both external battles (against growing numbers of evangelical churches...but also INTERNAL battles, often against a conservative wing that intended to destroy them from within.
This is a vastly understood dynamic in the history of Mainline Protestants from the 1970s onward.
And this, as you note, accounted for some of the attenuation of their messaging and mission: As they found themselves beset on almost all sides.
I'd say it another way: It's something of a miracle that Mainline Protestants survived the challenges of more "exciting" evangelical" churches, and also their own internal adversaries.
I'm actually cautiously optimistic about our United Methodist Church today...but I'm ready for demographers to provide new and correct data that can help us understand where we are now.
The true story of mainline churches decline has yet to be told. And even in most of the conversation here (as almost everywhere else online) most of the conversation falls into a narrative ready-made by conservatives and evangelicals.
The decline of the mainlines was:
1. Because they fought against more nimble non-denoms and evangelicals...
2. Because they fought internal enemies who were paid to try and destroy them....
3. And yes, also because they failed to move quickly to match a. quicker church "marketplace."
But, I also have come to believe that there are fundamental differences between conservative and progressive leaders/followers that make it UNLIKELY progressive churches ever WILL scale up, as evangelical mega churches have in past decades.
But the planned destruction of Mainline denominations follows the same pattern that conservatives have/are using against institutions such as the media and democracy, itself....create parallel structures (ie, FOX News) and also destroy from within (Federalist Society in government, "Institute for Religion and Democracy" in the Mainlines)
Your conclusion is spot on. This information means continued decline in these denominations.
As to your question, "Would a Republican even feel comfortable attending classes and working toward ordination?" I can't give you surveys but anecdotally the answer is, "No." And it's not just someone politically conservative, but theological conservatives are also told they are not welcome. One Presbyterian pastor confided that he had to be vague or silent about what he believed whenever talking with his presbytery. Even as such he was sent to a tiny rural church where I think his superiors thought he could "do less damage" by his belief in things like the miracles of the Bible.
Interesting.Ryan Burge has a plot map chart on conversion as well. 5% of those raised Mainline have become Catholic, 14% Evangelical and 20% nothing. 58% are still Mainline. I can't paste a chart here - not sure how to find it for you.
Guess this is the question that we ask about other people and things. Do I want my doctor, teacher, rabbi, or elected representative to be just like me or to be better than me? Different churches have different ways of choosing their leaders. We hire our rabbis by search committees composed of congregants. The umbrella groups have rules of who we may hire, though my shul has an open search. I don't think we asked any of the candidates about their political affiliation. It is my understanding that some Protestant denominations elect their pastors in a similar way, while others have them assigned by the denominational infrastructure, as do the Catholics.
The divide between worshipers and clergy appears in Judaism, or is emerging, though not necessarily political. The rabbinical pipeline is changing. A study released this week showed that the incoming non-Orthodox group that congregations will need to hire, if these people want to go to synagogues at all when they have other options, will be over-represented by gays and women. https://atrarabbis.org/research/rabbinic-pipeline-study/ Those are the people who enroll in our seminaries, not the careerists of my generation who seemed much like the kids who went to law and medical school or latched onto their family businesses.
No reason to think that Christians attending college today will make their decisions to enroll in seminary much differently, producing a parallel group for the churches to hire.
Interesting comparison. Reminds me of Batya Sargon's observation about journalists. Formerly they pursued a career like other jobs, starting with small-town weeklies and advancing after experience. Now the experience path doesn't exist, so the people who choose journalism are ideologues with family money who can make a chancy bet on instant stardom.
I'm concerned about the idea that ministers and congregants need to share their political outlooks, though. I'm an Independent because I'm not strong enough in faith to avoid trying to justify clear, anti-Christian behaviors from party leaders when I belong to that party. Since neither party clings tightly to Jesus' teachings, I'm fine not voting in primaries. I've served extremely conservative congregations and am now with a moderately progressive one; all have grown in number and ministries. My political opinions (that's all they are) don't apply, except when behaviors clearly contradict Jesus (which happens daily).
I don't try to confuse spirituality with ideology, and worry your last paragraph does just that; in the liberal seminary I attended, that was call "idolatry of ideology." Anecdotally it seems more congregations of all traditions are forming more around social views than shared doctrine these days. I often meet ministers (liberal and conservative) who claim their politics are "more Christian" and they need to get church members more in line with their views, but I've never accepted that as Christian ministry. I've found that kind of twisted faith formation is actually what drives decline, not different political views. Different political views in one congregation is a strength a la 1 Corinthians 12, and a real sign of health. May God get us back to that Godly perspective.
I see there are about a million American Baptists on the membership rolls. Is that big or small?
I think almost all of the Independent clergy are actually strong Democrats who know their members are Republicans and want to lay low, even on surveys. There are fewer female Independents because they are younger and rasher and less worried about losing their jobs.
I believe your theory about clergy and affiliation are likely correct.
I'll also remind everyone that every denomination counts their "members" differently, and we have never, not for one day, dealt in "apples to apples" comparison of denominational size because of this.
Wow, would I love to see a state by state breakdown on this. In the Episcopal Church in Michigan, I don't think we mirror the national Episcopal Church data. My guess is that nationally, the Episcopal Church skews more toward the Republicans in the southern part of the United States, which is also where we have more and larger churches. I am sure there are Republican Episcopalian laity in Michigan! I just don't think there are as many proportionally here as there are on a national basis. Any hope of more granular data-digging here?
Well....I *am* gonna get mad here...so mad that I subscribed just to leave this comment.
:)
Once again, both you and PRRI are making bold claims about we United Methodists....based on data that clearly predates our church split.
You say this data was collected in 2022-2023?
That means: It includes 24% of American "United Methodists" who are no longer "United Methodists" but are now "Global Methodist," or some other independent Methodist.
This leads me to be doubly frustrated with your conclusions...and to be incredibly wary of your new book...which I'm going to guess is based on the same outdated-data.
Bottom line of my critique of both you and PRRI:
This data can't possibly be correct at this moment, as it applies to The United Methodist Church. Again, the entire religious world understands we have now said goodbye to almost ¼ of our churches...and almost ALL of those were "conservative."
Therefore, you are working with skewed data, which is giving you skewed results.
(BTW: I also left this same complaint on the PRRI Substack, so I'm not just picking on you....)
If 24% of the United Methodists left (and the vast majority were more conservative), then why did the overall vote share of the United Methodists not change after the split?
The simplest answer would be: “Your data is wrong.”
I don’t know how, because you hold the keys to your data, but that’s the simplest answer.
Since I can’t see inside your data, let me point to simple, high-level data that I can show to illustrate how completely confident I am in suggesting this that, somehow, your data is wrong. (I think I actually wrote this to you on your social media at the time you published your election post-mortem….)
I think I can illustrate how I’m confident your data must be wrong….somehow… in the following known facts:
Facts:
1. One quarter of United Methodists churches left for the self-identified “more conservative” GMC.
2. In order to be eligible to leave a church had to vote by a supermajority of 66% vote. This is not polling data or exit polls. This is actual votes of actual United Methodists voting in their actual churches across our “connection.”
3. Votes at the General Conference of the United Methodist Church (post split) reflect a clear EXIT of conservative voters/members.
————
Let me elaborate on point #3 because it’s a bit of Inside Baseball for Methodists. At the recent General Conference, some “progressive-coded” positions (my term, nobody else’s) passed by shockingly high 80-90%.
(These were: votes in favor of policies that either removed harmful language toward the LGBTQ community, or that paved the way for “regionalism,” a move Conservative United Methodist were known to have fought against for the past 20+ years….)
My guess is the shockingly high margins of support for more “progressive-coded” positions are a result of several factors.
One is a backlash of GC delegate elections in 2019 that trended among far more progressive/ moderate leaning delegates.
So, I will cede this small point that you’ve made with respect to mainline protestants in other places: Leadership does trend “more liberal” among United Methodists delegates.
Another factor is that our international delegates, in many respects, “switched teams” and started voting win the remaining Progressive-to-Moderate American Methodists. But! That cannot account for ALL of the shift in this vote….
At General Conferences prior to the Conservatives leaving (and both we United Methodists and the GMC folks who left would characterize it as “the conservatives leaving…”) the vote split on similar matters in the United Methodist Church was something like 60-40 *against* similarly “progressive-coded” policies. (Pro LGBTQ or Pro “Regionalism”)
That means since the schism there has been something like a 40-50 point swing in the margin…from 60-40 *against* change, to 90-10 *in favor* of change.
I believe that difference is clearly showing a both/and effect of more progressive delegates being elected, the international delegates “switching teams,” AND FINALLY ALSO the clear exit of conservatives from the United Methodist scene.
-------------
IN SUM:
¼ of our churches left for an explicitly more conservative denomination, and could only do so by a vote of NO LESS than 66% of its membership actually voted to do so.
Further, recent votes in the United Methodist General Conference reflect a wild-swing in delegate votes that can only be credibly explained by the fact that something like ¼ of our conservative United Methodists have left our denomination. (Along with the other factors that I’ve ceded above…)
—————————
Therefore, when your analysis shows election polling data that indicate:
1. No significant change within United Methodist voting patterns in 2020 and 2024…and also
2. No significant change between OUR data and other mainline protestant denomination exit data over those same two cycles (I’m referencing graphs in your piece: “2024 Election Post-Mortem”) ....
It leads me to say: “I don’t know how, but I know your data is wrong…”
The clear evidence…a documented data-trail of those churches who voted and the margins they voted to leave by…indicated they trended heavily “Conservative.”
Therefore, it defies credulity that your exit data for us in those two cycles would not change AT ALL.
And it further defies credulity that those percentages didn’t signficantly change when compared to other mainline protestants over those same two cycles. There’s just no logical way to conclude otherwise.
———————————
So…the next question is: HOW or WHY is the data wrong?
Again, I have no idea. But even though you didn't ask, here I will take some guesses....
I believe many respondents to your 2024 exit polling either:
1. Did not realize they are not longer United Methodist, so they answered “United Methodist;” or
2. They answered “United Methodist” because there was no “Are you GMC?” Option.
Occam’s Razor would suggest one of these two likely possibilities.
(What I don’t know: Did you ask about the GMC? Did you provide a GMC option?)
I will tell you that we United Methodists still have some GMC church members calling our Bishop’s offices, asking “When are you sending a new pastor?”
This indicates, albeit just anecdotally, that #1 (“Do not realize they are no longer a United Methodist”) is, indeed, an issue to some extent.
(How much? No idea…)
Adding credibility to the "delayed-understanding theory of their denominational affinity": some annual conferences did not formally ratify the leaving of some of their churches until mid-2024.
The “Unifying Conference” for our new United Methodist Conference in my region was September 2024…..and some areas of the country are still restructuring.
IOW: While the gist of the dissafiliation work happened in 23…it bled into 2024.
But, if I had to guess HOW/WHY your data is off, it would be some combination of those guesses.
The bottom line remains (and thank you if you actually read all of this):
We have empirical evidence of VOTES CAST among the MEMBERS (not clergy) of former UMs who are now GMC.
We know that, incontrovertibly, those who left were, overwhelmingly, “conservative” and those who strayed trended (mostly) moderate-to-progressive.
We know that those who left had to vote by a super majority to leave.
We know that UMs who stayed now vote more by shockingly high moderate-to-progressive supermajorities.
It is because we know all these things that I can say, with great confidence, “I don’t know how, but your data is wrong…”
Having responded where I think you are wrong….let me close by agreeing with something you said in this piece:
That is it a mistake to suggest that United Methodists are a “liberal denomination.”
Amen, brother.
You are correct.
That was never true.
And that is not true now.
I would say, then and now, that we are a “big tent” denomination with churches that are “moderate,” containing progressive and conservative wings…and also churches that are explicitly still solidly conservative or remain “progressive.” To use Ezra Klein's terminology, we are becoming less "cross sorted," and more "stacked" in our identities...with large UMs still trending *mostly* moderately (In our South Central part or the world...)
We were always a “big tent,” but now, our Overton Window has moved, slightly to the left.
Prior to roughly 2022, my own SWAGs on this has always been that we’ve trended “center-right” for many years, prior to our split.
My guess was something like 55-60% “Conservative” in the period up to 2022.
My *current* swag is that we can now credibly be called a “center-left” denomination.
Again, my GUESS would be at something like a similar percentage....just slightly in the other direction….
Just a clarification. It's not my data. I have no hand at all in data collection. That is handled by research teams at Harvard University, Tufts University, and Brigham Young University.
In the 2024 survey, there's a top-level question about affiliation. If you choose Protestant, you are given another question about denomination. Options include things like Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc.
If you choose Methodist you are given the following options;
United Methodist
Free Methodist
African Methodist Episcopal
African Methodist Episcopal Zion
Christian Methodist Episcopal
Other Methodist (free response).
There were 8 people who chose "Other Methodist" and typed "Global" in the box.
(sorry for misunderstanding that it was your data...)
My top level response would be:
Those choices were quite decent ones, pre-2024....
But to not have a choice of "Global Methodist" in a survey done where the surveyors should had known something like ¼ to 1/5 of anyone who might choose "Some Kind of Methodist" ...is a glaring oversight in the most current data...
(For all the reasons I wrote in my long missive....)
Again, it's demonstrably clear to everyone inside of current-day "United Methodism" that something has changed.
So...and I know this is getting super technical....if you're drawing conclusions about where mainline denominations are, then I get that, at a high level, this data is likely still helpful.
But if you, or anyone, is using this data to describe actual current-day "United Methodists," this will lead to clearly incorrect conclusions.
I'd assume everyone would still classify "Global Methodists" as mainline...although it would be interesting to see how they'd classify themselves, as I'd guess many of them might pick "Evangelical."
(I have no idea, I wouldn't want to speak for them...but those would be interesting questions to feret out in surveys....)
All I know is this: If the data shows the same results for "United Methodists" in both 2020 and 2024...there is a nearly 100% certainty that this data is WRONG in terms of its conclusions about what the UMC is RIGHT NOW.
Dr. Burge, RE: This should prompt a whole lot of reflection among denominational leaders of the Seven Sisters—but I’m not sure it will. Why are your seminaries and pulpits primarily attracting liberals? Would a Republican even feel comfortable attending classes and working toward ordination?
Even before I got to this paragraph, I was thinking the same thing!
And I was also thinking, given Rep's WAY more WORLDLY than SPIRITUAL world view, about why Rs aren't attending seminaries.
Welcome to my TED talk about being a public, online Social Scientist: "Don’t get mad at me. Get mad at the data."
I'll definitely get mad at the conclusions, when I am 100% the data is wrong or skewed.
Is it wrong to think that a big contributing factor here is the education levels required of clergy? Higher education is pretty consistently correlated to political liberalism and I think you see similar gaps between clergy and laity in evangelical churches and denominations that require a high level of education for their clergy. Anecdotally, I found that the more educated I got, the more my appreciation for complexity grew, which makes it hard to be a card-carrying conservative. It makes it hard to be a card-carrying progressive, too, in my opinion, but it seems to me that the Democratic Party in its current form has more capacity to handle complexity than the Republican Party. I'd probably be one of those registered independents if I was American instead of Canadian!
I restricted the sample to only respondents who have earned a four year college degree.
https://ibb.co/LDrgDG37
The gap persists.
It would be really interesting to tease out the difference within the UMC of what is considered "clergy". I would predict a bit of a divide between licensed local pastors and elders because of the seminary requirement (seminary being, I would assume, a liberalizing influence).
Also, these were between 22 and 23, so kind of mid-split for the UMC, right? Be interesting to see these same numbers in 5 years or so.
agreed.
How much does the percentage of laity who identify as moderate jump amongst those with 4-year degrees?
I was wondering the same thing. In my circles, there's a pretty big difference of worldview between those with a four-year college degree and those without one! Still interesting to see that it's not like a PhD is the thing that makes the difference though, Ryan - thanks for that!
I bet this is a factor of the current political polarization of society....way easier to get along with your conservative-leaning congregation if you tell them you are an Independent and, thus, vote your conscience. IMO, anyway.
I bet this is a factor of the current political polarization of society....way easier to get along with your conservative-leaning congregation if you tell them you are an Independent and, thus, vote your conscience. IMO, anyway.
It would be interesting to explore two other questions: 1) clergy tend to be in a low pay/high education profession. Doesn't that tend to be the most left leaning element? Are their views typical for that element? (i.e., social workers, journalists, etc).
2) While the UCC has a divergence between clergy and laity, the denomination also leaves the congregation in (total?) control of the selection of the minister. The UMC has less divergence, yet the minister is appointed by the bishop, right?
For what it's worth, I think this boils down to two well-intentioned steps, and a third self-reinforcing stage we're still in: first, the Flexner Report in 1910 & the Carnegie Foundation in 1918 began to systematize higher education from medical schools on down to any post-secondary institution, with credit hours and standards for granting degrees (there's a slightly earlier push to do all this with high school diplomas & Normal school licensure for secondary teachers which feeds into this from the 1870s to 1894). One big change that came with TIAA support for pensions was the adoption of relatively objective criteria for not just credit hours, but the faculty who taught those hours, which culminated in the expectation of terminal degrees, a debate for another day. But it meant that college presidents and professors weren't just well-read clergy after the 1920s, a major change. Before that, clergy shaped colleges; afterwards, the trend began to operate in the other direction. In part because...
Secondly, other Protestant bodies followed their socially more established Anglican/Episcopal & Presbyterian fellows in both establishing, and increasingly expecting, a higher education credential for ministry, among Methodists, Lutherans, Congregationalists, and even Baptists, slowly ticking over from an A.B. or B.D. to the modern "norm" of M.Divs. from the 1920s through 2000. What quietly took place in that transition was the assumptions around ministerial formation moved from the more local judicatory (conference, diocese, classis, region, etc.) to the divinity school/seminary experience. After all, it was residential, multi-year, and in a sort of worshiping community, so of course judicatories could assume your ministerial formation took place there, and was simply validated by the judicatory processes upon completion.
The third and final stage of this development was the shift of seeing the Order of Ministry model for most Protestants, especially mainline bodies, into a more academic model of what the "local scholar of religion" was to the congregation they served, and within the middle judicatory they had leadership roles in. Sabbatical expectations, office hours, professional ethics with more of a higher education frame than a pastoral set of assumptions . . . and for years I heard judicatory officials, when asked about compensation norms, say "it should be equivalent to your local middle school principal." Clergy began to see themselves as a sort of junior faculty in a dispersed college of practicioners.
Without rancor, I think the adoption of a largely higher education model for ministerial roles and responsibilities and compensation resulted in clergy seeing themselves very much as in a professorial role -- at a time when higher education faculties were veering strongly to the left. [Insert 3,000 words about the legacy of Vietnam and draft deferments HERE.] That model and some of our other institutional assumptions internally became a self-reinforcing race to "who can out-progressive the next person" in ministerial circles, and within middle judicatories.
That upward ratchet of education and self-understanding in higher education terms, more than within an internally referenced ecclesial model, created an environment where a more progressive world view is not only supported, it has become expected and even reinforced (if not obliquely mandated) within ordination review processes.
Seems like the seven sister followed the same obsession with degrees that other service industries have found themselves in. I know when I took classes about HR, we learned abou degree requirement justification lawsuits where companies couldn't prove that a high school degree was required for some positions. Churches wouldn't fall under that legal scrutiny but they seem to have called for the same cultural higher ed pressures.
When I studied Higher Education some years ago, a common assumption was that the culture of faculty and administrators in HE drives liberalism, when data shows student's increasing liberalism is driven by student culture. So intuitive once you hear it, seems like it should have been obvious from the start. Even faculty radically overestimate the impact they have on students. Student culture impacts not just thinking but social behavior to a point no professor will probably see in the classroom.
This might imply that the shifts in higher education to examine aren't so much changes in administration or educational approach, but what impacts students.
There definitely was a "professionalization" of clergy...as you are noting here.
For all the reasons you're noting here too.
I'll thrown on one more: A desire by adjudicatory bodies to prevent (or at least reduce) the total number of "clergy scandals."
The professionalization process your describing also had, as a goal, the desire to weed out narcissistic and power hungry individuals who might abuse their power...and their parishioners.
Along with the other reasons you're noting we should also note this one too: And, most definitely, not apologize for it.
Not apologize, no, but . . . you are absolutely correct here, but the complication in the narrative is we started piling professionalization costs onto ordination processes and standing verification just as the effective income for clergy started curving down. And I think when regions (our middle judicatory in the Disciples of Christ) start adding onto the expectation of a residential M.Div. etc. the costs of CPE, spiritual direction, or ongoing courses for standing, we're backing into a meat grinder of a problem. As a Commission on Ministry member & team leader in three regions, I've defended the costs of psych evals and background checks for years, and am glad we added these things to our pre-1980 process of "who knows this candidate, and are they okay?" But I do think we may be overdoing the professionalization emulation for ministry with what some regions are putting forward as requirements.
I 100% agree with your last statement. And I hope we can enter a time where, even if it's out of a practical need to make things easier, we're re-evaluating this.
I've long said: "it takes as long to become a UMC pastor as it does a medical doctor...take a guess which one most folks will choose?"
Now...that was before major changes to medicine which have made it less attractive too..but you get my drift....
Actually, it's probably important to name that ALL professions have made their barriers to entry more onerous in the modern era. I think of a book by William May that clearly pre-saged this called "Beleaguered Rulers: The Public Obligation of the Professional."
This is THIRTY year old book that, even back then, noted how much under assault "professionals" felt from both outside and within...it feels super prescient now.
ALL OF THIS SAID...
In North Texas, we are...right now....dealing with a rash of very public sex and $$ scandals...almost all of which began in pastor-led megachurches without any denominational accountability.
I think we can make a credible argument to our culture: Yes....we are slow and boring. But there is a REASON we are slow and boring. Because thoughtfulness and caution are important when choosing leaders.
That seems like a pretty nice message for the broader culture at exactly this moment.
AMAZINGLY informative posting.
MUCH THANKS!!!!!
I, too, thought about the '70s issue that led many into the ministry and also, sadly, into education, which has never recovered from this issue.
For the 3-4 years those unqualified and unprepared guys) were "teaching" (more like showing up in a classroom) the whole profession suffered....I know, cuz I had to deal with these jerks!!!!).
Sorry for the rant....well, mostly sorry.
Not surprising at all. In every institution, religious or commercial or educational, leaders are strictly required to be orthodox Democrats. Workers and customers are evenly split, MOSTLY not interested in the whole pointless mess of political arguing.
One number does surprise me. Based on pastors and seminarians I knew a long time ago, I figured that nearly all Episcopal pastors would be female by now. But they're not significantly different from others.
Something that struck me about that first graph is the distribution of answers for clergy vs laity, with more clergy landing in other categories than Democratic and Republican compared to laity. I wonder whether this also contributes to the picture of differences - perhaps clergy are less likely to see their political affiliation as an either/or but instead with more complexity.
Really interesting article!
What struck me was the role of Independent in the initial graphs. I find myself wondering if that identification is tied into a desire to be open to both sides, to not claim a label. This might be speaking to their sense of spiritual vocation.
Yes. I've known clergy in states with party registration who choose to be independents/no party because they think that is proper for a minister.
The preponderance of people DEFECTING from the mainline laity ranks since the 1970s, toward flavors of none, are defecting in part because they think the mainline is too stodgy and too much stuck in the orbit of Christianity that leans rightward. (Not that there aren't other issues too.) There are plenty of churches on the rightward side of this spectrum for a minority to defect to if that is what they want-- but not as many on the leftward side of the spectrum. In this context it is not entirely clear, and probably varies from case to case, whether the gaps you are trying to quantify are making things better or worse for mainline churches.
Good point. These results are AFTer these mainline churches have shrunk because conservatives leave or don't join. And there *still* are a lot of Republicans!
Eric, If I understand your comment correctly, it may be almost the opposite of what I was trying to suggest. The mainline needs to close a gap, more with people defecting in a LIBERAL direction than a conservative one. To do this it needs to stake out a space and "brand" LEFT of the centrist evangelicals and ex-evangelicals with which it often overlaps. The common sense that the mainline naturally has to triangulate toward its right flank is a major DRIVER of the problem of declining numbers, not a solution to its problems. Granted this can cause lose-lose choices at times. Nevertheless (adjusting for case to case calculus because it's complicated) on balance these traditions may well need MORE, not less, of a gap between their leadership and their Republican parishioners.
I agree with your basic theory here. There are, indeed, very few left or center/left churches and denominations of size. This is the line that I agree with most:
"The common sense that the mainline naturally has to triangulate toward its right flank is a major DRIVER of the problem of declining numbers, not a solution to its problems."
exactly.
What our culture has failed to account for in all the conversation about mainline decline is that successive mainlines...Episcopals, Presbyterians, and United Methodist in succession....were fighting both external battles (against growing numbers of evangelical churches...but also INTERNAL battles, often against a conservative wing that intended to destroy them from within.
This is a vastly understood dynamic in the history of Mainline Protestants from the 1970s onward.
And this, as you note, accounted for some of the attenuation of their messaging and mission: As they found themselves beset on almost all sides.
I'd say it another way: It's something of a miracle that Mainline Protestants survived the challenges of more "exciting" evangelical" churches, and also their own internal adversaries.
I'm actually cautiously optimistic about our United Methodist Church today...but I'm ready for demographers to provide new and correct data that can help us understand where we are now.
The true story of mainline churches decline has yet to be told. And even in most of the conversation here (as almost everywhere else online) most of the conversation falls into a narrative ready-made by conservatives and evangelicals.
The decline of the mainlines was:
1. Because they fought against more nimble non-denoms and evangelicals...
2. Because they fought internal enemies who were paid to try and destroy them....
3. And yes, also because they failed to move quickly to match a. quicker church "marketplace."
But, I also have come to believe that there are fundamental differences between conservative and progressive leaders/followers that make it UNLIKELY progressive churches ever WILL scale up, as evangelical mega churches have in past decades.
But the planned destruction of Mainline denominations follows the same pattern that conservatives have/are using against institutions such as the media and democracy, itself....create parallel structures (ie, FOX News) and also destroy from within (Federalist Society in government, "Institute for Religion and Democracy" in the Mainlines)
Your conclusion is spot on. This information means continued decline in these denominations.
As to your question, "Would a Republican even feel comfortable attending classes and working toward ordination?" I can't give you surveys but anecdotally the answer is, "No." And it's not just someone politically conservative, but theological conservatives are also told they are not welcome. One Presbyterian pastor confided that he had to be vague or silent about what he believed whenever talking with his presbytery. Even as such he was sent to a tiny rural church where I think his superiors thought he could "do less damage" by his belief in things like the miracles of the Bible.
I know a few who became Catholic for this reason.
Interesting.Ryan Burge has a plot map chart on conversion as well. 5% of those raised Mainline have become Catholic, 14% Evangelical and 20% nothing. 58% are still Mainline. I can't paste a chart here - not sure how to find it for you.
Guess this is the question that we ask about other people and things. Do I want my doctor, teacher, rabbi, or elected representative to be just like me or to be better than me? Different churches have different ways of choosing their leaders. We hire our rabbis by search committees composed of congregants. The umbrella groups have rules of who we may hire, though my shul has an open search. I don't think we asked any of the candidates about their political affiliation. It is my understanding that some Protestant denominations elect their pastors in a similar way, while others have them assigned by the denominational infrastructure, as do the Catholics.
The divide between worshipers and clergy appears in Judaism, or is emerging, though not necessarily political. The rabbinical pipeline is changing. A study released this week showed that the incoming non-Orthodox group that congregations will need to hire, if these people want to go to synagogues at all when they have other options, will be over-represented by gays and women. https://atrarabbis.org/research/rabbinic-pipeline-study/ Those are the people who enroll in our seminaries, not the careerists of my generation who seemed much like the kids who went to law and medical school or latched onto their family businesses.
No reason to think that Christians attending college today will make their decisions to enroll in seminary much differently, producing a parallel group for the churches to hire.
Interesting comparison. Reminds me of Batya Sargon's observation about journalists. Formerly they pursued a career like other jobs, starting with small-town weeklies and advancing after experience. Now the experience path doesn't exist, so the people who choose journalism are ideologues with family money who can make a chancy bet on instant stardom.
This was very helpful, Ryan, as usual.
I'm concerned about the idea that ministers and congregants need to share their political outlooks, though. I'm an Independent because I'm not strong enough in faith to avoid trying to justify clear, anti-Christian behaviors from party leaders when I belong to that party. Since neither party clings tightly to Jesus' teachings, I'm fine not voting in primaries. I've served extremely conservative congregations and am now with a moderately progressive one; all have grown in number and ministries. My political opinions (that's all they are) don't apply, except when behaviors clearly contradict Jesus (which happens daily).
I don't try to confuse spirituality with ideology, and worry your last paragraph does just that; in the liberal seminary I attended, that was call "idolatry of ideology." Anecdotally it seems more congregations of all traditions are forming more around social views than shared doctrine these days. I often meet ministers (liberal and conservative) who claim their politics are "more Christian" and they need to get church members more in line with their views, but I've never accepted that as Christian ministry. I've found that kind of twisted faith formation is actually what drives decline, not different political views. Different political views in one congregation is a strength a la 1 Corinthians 12, and a real sign of health. May God get us back to that Godly perspective.
I see there are about a million American Baptists on the membership rolls. Is that big or small?
I think almost all of the Independent clergy are actually strong Democrats who know their members are Republicans and want to lay low, even on surveys. There are fewer female Independents because they are younger and rasher and less worried about losing their jobs.
I believe your theory about clergy and affiliation are likely correct.
I'll also remind everyone that every denomination counts their "members" differently, and we have never, not for one day, dealt in "apples to apples" comparison of denominational size because of this.
I had the same thought. I’d love to see that proven out, though you can somewhat see it in then liberal conservative spectrum
Small and probably overcounted.
Wow, would I love to see a state by state breakdown on this. In the Episcopal Church in Michigan, I don't think we mirror the national Episcopal Church data. My guess is that nationally, the Episcopal Church skews more toward the Republicans in the southern part of the United States, which is also where we have more and larger churches. I am sure there are Republican Episcopalian laity in Michigan! I just don't think there are as many proportionally here as there are on a national basis. Any hope of more granular data-digging here?
Well....I *am* gonna get mad here...so mad that I subscribed just to leave this comment.
:)
Once again, both you and PRRI are making bold claims about we United Methodists....based on data that clearly predates our church split.
You say this data was collected in 2022-2023?
That means: It includes 24% of American "United Methodists" who are no longer "United Methodists" but are now "Global Methodist," or some other independent Methodist.
This leads me to be doubly frustrated with your conclusions...and to be incredibly wary of your new book...which I'm going to guess is based on the same outdated-data.
Bottom line of my critique of both you and PRRI:
This data can't possibly be correct at this moment, as it applies to The United Methodist Church. Again, the entire religious world understands we have now said goodbye to almost ¼ of our churches...and almost ALL of those were "conservative."
Therefore, you are working with skewed data, which is giving you skewed results.
(BTW: I also left this same complaint on the PRRI Substack, so I'm not just picking on you....)
In 2020, 61% of United Methodists voted for Trump.
In 2024, 62% of United Methodists voted for Trump.
https://www.graphsaboutreligion.com/p/2024-election-post-mortem-mainline
If 24% of the United Methodists left (and the vast majority were more conservative), then why did the overall vote share of the United Methodists not change after the split?
The simplest answer would be: “Your data is wrong.”
I don’t know how, because you hold the keys to your data, but that’s the simplest answer.
Since I can’t see inside your data, let me point to simple, high-level data that I can show to illustrate how completely confident I am in suggesting this that, somehow, your data is wrong. (I think I actually wrote this to you on your social media at the time you published your election post-mortem….)
I think I can illustrate how I’m confident your data must be wrong….somehow… in the following known facts:
Facts:
1. One quarter of United Methodists churches left for the self-identified “more conservative” GMC.
2. In order to be eligible to leave a church had to vote by a supermajority of 66% vote. This is not polling data or exit polls. This is actual votes of actual United Methodists voting in their actual churches across our “connection.”
3. Votes at the General Conference of the United Methodist Church (post split) reflect a clear EXIT of conservative voters/members.
————
Let me elaborate on point #3 because it’s a bit of Inside Baseball for Methodists. At the recent General Conference, some “progressive-coded” positions (my term, nobody else’s) passed by shockingly high 80-90%.
(These were: votes in favor of policies that either removed harmful language toward the LGBTQ community, or that paved the way for “regionalism,” a move Conservative United Methodist were known to have fought against for the past 20+ years….)
My guess is the shockingly high margins of support for more “progressive-coded” positions are a result of several factors.
One is a backlash of GC delegate elections in 2019 that trended among far more progressive/ moderate leaning delegates.
So, I will cede this small point that you’ve made with respect to mainline protestants in other places: Leadership does trend “more liberal” among United Methodists delegates.
Another factor is that our international delegates, in many respects, “switched teams” and started voting win the remaining Progressive-to-Moderate American Methodists. But! That cannot account for ALL of the shift in this vote….
At General Conferences prior to the Conservatives leaving (and both we United Methodists and the GMC folks who left would characterize it as “the conservatives leaving…”) the vote split on similar matters in the United Methodist Church was something like 60-40 *against* similarly “progressive-coded” policies. (Pro LGBTQ or Pro “Regionalism”)
That means since the schism there has been something like a 40-50 point swing in the margin…from 60-40 *against* change, to 90-10 *in favor* of change.
I believe that difference is clearly showing a both/and effect of more progressive delegates being elected, the international delegates “switching teams,” AND FINALLY ALSO the clear exit of conservatives from the United Methodist scene.
-------------
IN SUM:
¼ of our churches left for an explicitly more conservative denomination, and could only do so by a vote of NO LESS than 66% of its membership actually voted to do so.
Further, recent votes in the United Methodist General Conference reflect a wild-swing in delegate votes that can only be credibly explained by the fact that something like ¼ of our conservative United Methodists have left our denomination. (Along with the other factors that I’ve ceded above…)
—————————
Therefore, when your analysis shows election polling data that indicate:
1. No significant change within United Methodist voting patterns in 2020 and 2024…and also
2. No significant change between OUR data and other mainline protestant denomination exit data over those same two cycles (I’m referencing graphs in your piece: “2024 Election Post-Mortem”) ....
It leads me to say: “I don’t know how, but I know your data is wrong…”
The clear evidence…a documented data-trail of those churches who voted and the margins they voted to leave by…indicated they trended heavily “Conservative.”
Therefore, it defies credulity that your exit data for us in those two cycles would not change AT ALL.
And it further defies credulity that those percentages didn’t signficantly change when compared to other mainline protestants over those same two cycles. There’s just no logical way to conclude otherwise.
———————————
So…the next question is: HOW or WHY is the data wrong?
Again, I have no idea. But even though you didn't ask, here I will take some guesses....
I believe many respondents to your 2024 exit polling either:
1. Did not realize they are not longer United Methodist, so they answered “United Methodist;” or
2. They answered “United Methodist” because there was no “Are you GMC?” Option.
Occam’s Razor would suggest one of these two likely possibilities.
(What I don’t know: Did you ask about the GMC? Did you provide a GMC option?)
I will tell you that we United Methodists still have some GMC church members calling our Bishop’s offices, asking “When are you sending a new pastor?”
This indicates, albeit just anecdotally, that #1 (“Do not realize they are no longer a United Methodist”) is, indeed, an issue to some extent.
(How much? No idea…)
Adding credibility to the "delayed-understanding theory of their denominational affinity": some annual conferences did not formally ratify the leaving of some of their churches until mid-2024.
The “Unifying Conference” for our new United Methodist Conference in my region was September 2024…..and some areas of the country are still restructuring.
IOW: While the gist of the dissafiliation work happened in 23…it bled into 2024.
But, if I had to guess HOW/WHY your data is off, it would be some combination of those guesses.
The bottom line remains (and thank you if you actually read all of this):
We have empirical evidence of VOTES CAST among the MEMBERS (not clergy) of former UMs who are now GMC.
We know that, incontrovertibly, those who left were, overwhelmingly, “conservative” and those who strayed trended (mostly) moderate-to-progressive.
We know that those who left had to vote by a super majority to leave.
We know that UMs who stayed now vote more by shockingly high moderate-to-progressive supermajorities.
It is because we know all these things that I can say, with great confidence, “I don’t know how, but your data is wrong…”
Having responded where I think you are wrong….let me close by agreeing with something you said in this piece:
That is it a mistake to suggest that United Methodists are a “liberal denomination.”
Amen, brother.
You are correct.
That was never true.
And that is not true now.
I would say, then and now, that we are a “big tent” denomination with churches that are “moderate,” containing progressive and conservative wings…and also churches that are explicitly still solidly conservative or remain “progressive.” To use Ezra Klein's terminology, we are becoming less "cross sorted," and more "stacked" in our identities...with large UMs still trending *mostly* moderately (In our South Central part or the world...)
We were always a “big tent,” but now, our Overton Window has moved, slightly to the left.
Prior to roughly 2022, my own SWAGs on this has always been that we’ve trended “center-right” for many years, prior to our split.
My guess was something like 55-60% “Conservative” in the period up to 2022.
My *current* swag is that we can now credibly be called a “center-left” denomination.
Again, my GUESS would be at something like a similar percentage....just slightly in the other direction….
Maybe *slightly* higher. Maybe 65% left-leaning now?
But I would have in the past, and I would still today, categorically reject the idea that we are a “liberal” denomination.
You are most definitely correct on this point.
Just a clarification. It's not my data. I have no hand at all in data collection. That is handled by research teams at Harvard University, Tufts University, and Brigham Young University.
You can have free access to that data here: https://cces.gov.harvard.edu/
In the 2024 survey, there's a top-level question about affiliation. If you choose Protestant, you are given another question about denomination. Options include things like Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc.
If you choose Methodist you are given the following options;
United Methodist
Free Methodist
African Methodist Episcopal
African Methodist Episcopal Zion
Christian Methodist Episcopal
Other Methodist (free response).
There were 8 people who chose "Other Methodist" and typed "Global" in the box.
Interesting. 8 out of how many total?
(sorry for misunderstanding that it was your data...)
My top level response would be:
Those choices were quite decent ones, pre-2024....
But to not have a choice of "Global Methodist" in a survey done where the surveyors should had known something like ¼ to 1/5 of anyone who might choose "Some Kind of Methodist" ...is a glaring oversight in the most current data...
(For all the reasons I wrote in my long missive....)
Again, it's demonstrably clear to everyone inside of current-day "United Methodism" that something has changed.
So...and I know this is getting super technical....if you're drawing conclusions about where mainline denominations are, then I get that, at a high level, this data is likely still helpful.
But if you, or anyone, is using this data to describe actual current-day "United Methodists," this will lead to clearly incorrect conclusions.
I'd assume everyone would still classify "Global Methodists" as mainline...although it would be interesting to see how they'd classify themselves, as I'd guess many of them might pick "Evangelical."
(I have no idea, I wouldn't want to speak for them...but those would be interesting questions to feret out in surveys....)
All I know is this: If the data shows the same results for "United Methodists" in both 2020 and 2024...there is a nearly 100% certainty that this data is WRONG in terms of its conclusions about what the UMC is RIGHT NOW.
Dr. Burge, RE: This should prompt a whole lot of reflection among denominational leaders of the Seven Sisters—but I’m not sure it will. Why are your seminaries and pulpits primarily attracting liberals? Would a Republican even feel comfortable attending classes and working toward ordination?
Even before I got to this paragraph, I was thinking the same thing!
And I was also thinking, given Rep's WAY more WORLDLY than SPIRITUAL world view, about why Rs aren't attending seminaries.
Have you done a Substack on theological differences between clergy and laity?