I had the same thought. It would be particularly interesting for the younger age groups as more people have delayed parenthood compactors earlier generations.
Ryan, by observation and asking around, I saw the percentage of people connected with and semi-regularly attending congregations who were also members dropping by the early 1980s. Some of it was generational lifestyle changes and less felt need to commit to membership and wanting to be a part but not be expected to volunteer or give financially, some of it coincided with the contemporary congregation movement and changing approaches to membership, and some with the move from denominational congregations to nondenominational congregations and the thought "I like this congregation, but maybe I should not join" as I am Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian etc in heritage. In my current congregation of membership, there are a whole list of things you are not allowed to do if you are not members. My wife and I started a new life group, and lost some members when we asked them to do certain things (like teach or handle the group database through the church software) and found out our congregation would not let people do this if they were not members. We actually then lost these people to the group as they were offended. Currently, we have slipped a non-member into the teaching team without letting the larger congregation system know we have done this. "Don't ask. Don't tell!" George
To be fair, George, I'm technically not a member anywhere now. It's a bit of a liminal space. Still in the personnel files of ABCUSA, but not technically on the membership rolls.
Ryan, it is difficult for former pastors, former denominational staff, and for consultants and coaches to congregations and denominations (I fit all three of those categories having served as a church planter, inner city pastor, denominational staff, and consultant to 50 denominations in North America) to find a satisfactory local church relationships in retirement, or when they are no longer serving in lead congregational calling/assignment/employment roles.) My wife and I are members of a congregation as doing so is natural for us in our mid-70s. However, that does not mean it is a satisfactory relationship. We know too much about the function and dysfunction in congregations--as you would as a former pastor and a researcher. Ask most any retired and otherwise former congregation/denomination staff, and most who say they have a fully satisfactory local congregation relationship are lying. I suppose your relationship with ABC in Illinois would go back to Dwight Stinnett (who sent me a message today) and nationally to Roy Medley. I would imagine they understand more about people who are never formally members of a congregation--yet attend some--than they did when they were active in ministry.
Some nondenominational churches don’t have membership. I go to church 2x a week, and have for over 25 years but I’m not a member because my church doesn’t have membership. I wonder how much that affects the data.
I would also not downplay the disappearing benefits of membership. Even into the 80s and 90s, being a member of a church conferred social and economic benefits, such as professional networking, midwife support, and financial support from deacons. As those benefits disappear and churches stop providing for their own, there is not a strong incentive to be a member.
Great piece, thank you. I would add another variant: I am a pastor of a local, established UCC congregation. We have on our rolls ca. 220 members (we deleted the “non-active members” as an oxymoron). Still, I will meet people who claim they are "members of my church" even though I have never seen them inside the building for 15 years since Ive ministered here. I dare say the correlation between regular attendance and actual membership is even stronger.
For a bunch of funny reasons modern Catholics like to parish hop. Also, the nature of modern Roman Catholicism is that membership rolls are much less of a thing that needs to be maintained in order to go.
I'm fascinated by the bounce back up to 41% in Mainline for people born after 2000 vs people born in the 1990s. Is that because children and youth are included in that data point, and they aren't bringing themselves, or is that truly reflective of adult choices?
I wonder what role the rise of non-denominational churches plays in this. In my experience, many non-denom churches don't maintain a membership roster or encourage people to identify as members.
Concur. In addition, many mainline churches (and Catholics) require formal membership to observe both baptism and communion. The "sacraments" are reserved for members only.
Catholics can receive the sacraments in any Catholic church around the world. Being recorded on the membership rolls at a particular church isn't required; just being a professed or a cradle Catholic is enough.
And I wonder how much of the younger cohort not being "members" of a church is due to them not being settled in one place yet: off at college or new in town for their first job, etc.
This is often no longer true. At least Episcopal churches are more than willing to share sacraments with nonmembers. It’s decision-making power that is restricted to members. And the question of how much power even members have relative to clergy is often a point of conflict.
I think this also goes neatly with the thesis of The Vanishing Church (which everyone should read, btw!!) People stop joining things, so folks in shared physical locations stop sharing practical goals and instead segregate based on abstract ideology and economic class, and this is...bad.
As always another interesting analysis. I also look forward to your posts.
I think that this phrasing is too strong: "pushing membership." Perhaps these groups either do a better job of explaining the concept of formal membership or, better, it is indicative of the community that members find within these congregations.
I think you may be missing two factors in your analysis of membership.
First, a growing number of Americans are moving away from their hometowns. Some do so after high school or college (most college students stay within 100 or 150 miles of home and maintain connected, going home for weekends, holidays and vacations). However, it’s more common as people get older. In any case, the fact is that geographic mobility is common. The second fact is that when people who have been members of a church move they are much less likely to join a church in their new town. I suspect that people who grew up attending church tend to become members when they become adults, get married (often to a spouse they met in church), and have their children baptized in their home church, if they still live in town. It would be interesting to compare the distribution of church membership and attendance between adults who have stayed in or close to their hometown and their parents/siblings and those who have moved away. I'd also be interested to see if there are differences in religious intensity between the two groups.
Reading delayed by electronic restrictions of Passover and Shabbos. My Jewish lenses look a whole lot different. My synagogue is a Medicare crowd. We have about 25% of dues paying members weekly attenders, which is a whole lot higher than the less observant synagogues have. it's not 50%.
For the holiday, I streamed some services in NY and California, places that have 1000+ members. Their attendance was a paltry fraction. The camera toured the pews with the Torah processionals.
There are also different definitions of what constitutes a member. Synagogues pay annual dues, $2500 seems to be the going rate. Chabad and Hillel have no dues, or nominal dues. So anyone who attends Chabad, as I did one Passover morning is not really a member but still attending.
Churches often have a very different way to support their worship and programming. For a synagogue you are a member if you pay the fee. For the Catholics, it is a more pay as you go, so you are a member if you identify yourself that way.
it makes the statistical results hard to interpret. A better measure may be to look at the ages of people in attendances. Surveys require a certain honesty from respondents. Streaming cameras do not.
What about people who attend a church (semi-regularly at least) but are not members? At my (Orthodox) church we have a fair number of "seekers" who show up but who are not (yet) taking the requisite catechism classes to be baptized or chrismated. Some people may well attend for over a year before they take that step, an then it will be while before they can go through the sacrament.
I see that many others have already made the point that nondenoms downplay church membership. I have always felt that membership should be in the body of Christ, not in a congregation, and last year I landed in a church that agrees with me. There is a review process before one can do leadership roles, but there's no membership roll. So I could not honestly answer this survey by saying I am a church member. A smaller factor might be reluctance to commit to everything in a church's statement of faith.
Members don't automatically attend, but I'd think a regular attender is automatically a member. It's like a drivers license. You can have a license without driving. If you drive regularly you WILL have a license.
I have always heard that having children motivates people to join a church, or go back to church. Does your research support that claim?
I had the same thought. It would be particularly interesting for the younger age groups as more people have delayed parenthood compactors earlier generations.
Ryan, by observation and asking around, I saw the percentage of people connected with and semi-regularly attending congregations who were also members dropping by the early 1980s. Some of it was generational lifestyle changes and less felt need to commit to membership and wanting to be a part but not be expected to volunteer or give financially, some of it coincided with the contemporary congregation movement and changing approaches to membership, and some with the move from denominational congregations to nondenominational congregations and the thought "I like this congregation, but maybe I should not join" as I am Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian etc in heritage. In my current congregation of membership, there are a whole list of things you are not allowed to do if you are not members. My wife and I started a new life group, and lost some members when we asked them to do certain things (like teach or handle the group database through the church software) and found out our congregation would not let people do this if they were not members. We actually then lost these people to the group as they were offended. Currently, we have slipped a non-member into the teaching team without letting the larger congregation system know we have done this. "Don't ask. Don't tell!" George
To be fair, George, I'm technically not a member anywhere now. It's a bit of a liminal space. Still in the personnel files of ABCUSA, but not technically on the membership rolls.
Ryan, it is difficult for former pastors, former denominational staff, and for consultants and coaches to congregations and denominations (I fit all three of those categories having served as a church planter, inner city pastor, denominational staff, and consultant to 50 denominations in North America) to find a satisfactory local church relationships in retirement, or when they are no longer serving in lead congregational calling/assignment/employment roles.) My wife and I are members of a congregation as doing so is natural for us in our mid-70s. However, that does not mean it is a satisfactory relationship. We know too much about the function and dysfunction in congregations--as you would as a former pastor and a researcher. Ask most any retired and otherwise former congregation/denomination staff, and most who say they have a fully satisfactory local congregation relationship are lying. I suppose your relationship with ABC in Illinois would go back to Dwight Stinnett (who sent me a message today) and nationally to Roy Medley. I would imagine they understand more about people who are never formally members of a congregation--yet attend some--than they did when they were active in ministry.
I lead a learning community where I live of semi to retired ministers. I do not know one of them with a satisfactory local congregation membership.
Some nondenominational churches don’t have membership. I go to church 2x a week, and have for over 25 years but I’m not a member because my church doesn’t have membership. I wonder how much that affects the data.
I would also not downplay the disappearing benefits of membership. Even into the 80s and 90s, being a member of a church conferred social and economic benefits, such as professional networking, midwife support, and financial support from deacons. As those benefits disappear and churches stop providing for their own, there is not a strong incentive to be a member.
Great piece, thank you. I would add another variant: I am a pastor of a local, established UCC congregation. We have on our rolls ca. 220 members (we deleted the “non-active members” as an oxymoron). Still, I will meet people who claim they are "members of my church" even though I have never seen them inside the building for 15 years since Ive ministered here. I dare say the correlation between regular attendance and actual membership is even stronger.
I'm sure that happens a whole lot with this data. From my perspective, though, just saying you are a member is as good as actually being a member.
Absolutely. Great article, thank you & blessed Easter!
How does the membership question deal with the decreased number of churches that offer membership? Our church is non-denominational
and doesn’t offer membership.
I have absolutely no idea, Joe. We have zero way to check their responses against actual membership files.
For a bunch of funny reasons modern Catholics like to parish hop. Also, the nature of modern Roman Catholicism is that membership rolls are much less of a thing that needs to be maintained in order to go.
I'm fascinated by the bounce back up to 41% in Mainline for people born after 2000 vs people born in the 1990s. Is that because children and youth are included in that data point, and they aren't bringing themselves, or is that truly reflective of adult choices?
I wonder what role the rise of non-denominational churches plays in this. In my experience, many non-denom churches don't maintain a membership roster or encourage people to identify as members.
Concur. In addition, many mainline churches (and Catholics) require formal membership to observe both baptism and communion. The "sacraments" are reserved for members only.
Catholics can receive the sacraments in any Catholic church around the world. Being recorded on the membership rolls at a particular church isn't required; just being a professed or a cradle Catholic is enough.
And I wonder how much of the younger cohort not being "members" of a church is due to them not being settled in one place yet: off at college or new in town for their first job, etc.
This is often no longer true. At least Episcopal churches are more than willing to share sacraments with nonmembers. It’s decision-making power that is restricted to members. And the question of how much power even members have relative to clergy is often a point of conflict.
This is #mainlinecomeback erasure.
I appreciate this hashtag
I think this also goes neatly with the thesis of The Vanishing Church (which everyone should read, btw!!) People stop joining things, so folks in shared physical locations stop sharing practical goals and instead segregate based on abstract ideology and economic class, and this is...bad.
As always another interesting analysis. I also look forward to your posts.
I think that this phrasing is too strong: "pushing membership." Perhaps these groups either do a better job of explaining the concept of formal membership or, better, it is indicative of the community that members find within these congregations.
Ryan,
I think you may be missing two factors in your analysis of membership.
First, a growing number of Americans are moving away from their hometowns. Some do so after high school or college (most college students stay within 100 or 150 miles of home and maintain connected, going home for weekends, holidays and vacations). However, it’s more common as people get older. In any case, the fact is that geographic mobility is common. The second fact is that when people who have been members of a church move they are much less likely to join a church in their new town. I suspect that people who grew up attending church tend to become members when they become adults, get married (often to a spouse they met in church), and have their children baptized in their home church, if they still live in town. It would be interesting to compare the distribution of church membership and attendance between adults who have stayed in or close to their hometown and their parents/siblings and those who have moved away. I'd also be interested to see if there are differences in religious intensity between the two groups.
This statement is empirically false: “a growing number of Americans are moving away from their hometowns”
In the 1940s, 20% of people moved. It was 11% in 2024.
https://www.axios.com/2025/11/30/us-moving-rate-map
Reading delayed by electronic restrictions of Passover and Shabbos. My Jewish lenses look a whole lot different. My synagogue is a Medicare crowd. We have about 25% of dues paying members weekly attenders, which is a whole lot higher than the less observant synagogues have. it's not 50%.
For the holiday, I streamed some services in NY and California, places that have 1000+ members. Their attendance was a paltry fraction. The camera toured the pews with the Torah processionals.
There are also different definitions of what constitutes a member. Synagogues pay annual dues, $2500 seems to be the going rate. Chabad and Hillel have no dues, or nominal dues. So anyone who attends Chabad, as I did one Passover morning is not really a member but still attending.
Churches often have a very different way to support their worship and programming. For a synagogue you are a member if you pay the fee. For the Catholics, it is a more pay as you go, so you are a member if you identify yourself that way.
it makes the statistical results hard to interpret. A better measure may be to look at the ages of people in attendances. Surveys require a certain honesty from respondents. Streaming cameras do not.
What about people who attend a church (semi-regularly at least) but are not members? At my (Orthodox) church we have a fair number of "seekers" who show up but who are not (yet) taking the requisite catechism classes to be baptized or chrismated. Some people may well attend for over a year before they take that step, an then it will be while before they can go through the sacrament.
I see that many others have already made the point that nondenoms downplay church membership. I have always felt that membership should be in the body of Christ, not in a congregation, and last year I landed in a church that agrees with me. There is a review process before one can do leadership roles, but there's no membership roll. So I could not honestly answer this survey by saying I am a church member. A smaller factor might be reluctance to commit to everything in a church's statement of faith.
Members don't automatically attend, but I'd think a regular attender is automatically a member. It's like a drivers license. You can have a license without driving. If you drive regularly you WILL have a license.
Some churches require formal sacramental rites, and education in the Church's teachings, to become a member.