If present trends continue ...
Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:44 pm
From what I've seen, growth in the church these days seems limited to underdeveloped countries (such as those in Latin America and West Africa) and in the developed world to immigrants and those with little education and low income. The church is not attracting educated people in any areas of the world. It is not attracting the financially secure (and this is probably the most worrisome to the suits). It is not attracting the emotionally and psychologically stable. In short, the missionary program, which has always thrived on attracting people at a vulnerable point in their lives, is attracting the chronically vulnerable. For a church whose mission appears to be growth and income, this is not a healthy trend.
But even the growth areas are deceptive. The retention rate among such people is quite low (less than 20% in many areas of the world). I well remember attending nearly empty chapels in Bolivia. One example: in the southern Bolivian city of Tarija (which had about 50,000 residents), there were 4 small LDS branches, 2 of which met in the recently constructed chapel. Our branch (Rama 3) met in a rented house. The first week I was there, attendance was 5, including us, although there were over 250 members on the records. The other branches averaged between 10 and 20 members a week. As a missionary, it was depressing to attend a church meeting in a gleaming new chapel with half of those in attendance being missionaries. Imagine my surprise when a couple of months later in the mission office, I was informed that the church would be starting an aggressive building campaign: over 50 chapels would be constructed in the next year, including 3 new chapels in Tarija. Even to a 19-year-old missionary, that seemed insane. But looking back on it, it follows a pattern I've seen over and over in the church: build to the numbers on paper. In Bolivia, that meant spending millions in construction money to build chapels that were not needed. I suspect that this practice goes on all over the world. Look at the Conference Center. Given the church's broadcast capabilities, this was a building that serves no purpose whatsoever.
Another similar experience happened in Texas. When we arrived in 2000, members in the Houston area would travel by bus 4 hours north to the Dallas Temple. Our ward had a monthly temple trip that was reasonably well-attended. When the Houston Temple opened, it was fairly busy for a few months. But after that, it was deserted, even on weekends. It was not uncommon to see sessions with 4 or 5 people in them, and they would get temple workers to attend the session so that there would be enough for a prayer circle. Just before we left, the new temple president, ex-GA William Bradford, became so alarmed at temple attendance that he began a program called "Fill the Temple." Wards were assigned a two-day period during which they were responsible for performing all the ordinances (endowments, sealings, baptisms, etc.). Each member was expected to sign up for at least half a day to do ordinances. I just got an email from my old bishop putting the pressure on for us to sign up for our temple "assignment."
The church seems to be operating under the idea that if you build churches, people will come. But that isn't happening, so what you are getting is unnecessary building draining funds. And declining growth rates (and lower income rates for those joining) mean less income from tithing with greater expenditures for welfare. The PEF seems a response to that in that it's designed to increase economic stability for church members in underdeveloped countries, a win-win situation for the church. But at some point they are going to have to look at the return on investment from their building projects. Temples now dot the land, but they aren't generating the levels of activity expected (my friend told me that in his recent visit to Bolivia, the temple in Cochabamba was staffed entirely by American missionary couples).
So, Hinckley's building push has been, in my judgment, a net drain on church finances. The missionary program is dead in the water in the developed world, and construction in the underdeveloped world has drained finances further. Frankly, the church's downtown mall project is an important investment to them. If this project, now estimated at over $2 billion, fails, the church could for the first time since 1959 face real financial problems. My visit to the Gateway complex tells me that the downtown malls project is iffy at best. The Gateway is already entrenched with upscale tenants, whom the church will have to attract for their mall project to succeed.
I think we can see some of the effects of the church's financial stresses already: the firing of church maintenance workers and the subsequent push for members to clean and maintain buildings, the tighter restrictions on budgets, particularly for Scouting and Young Women, the increased reliance on members to house and feed missionaries, and the increased use of broadcasts from the home office instead of GA travel.
None of this is to say that I believe that the church is on the verge of collapse. It's not. But I do suspect that further belt-tightening is coming, and the church is going to have to rely more on its investments if it wants to continue to thrive.
But even the growth areas are deceptive. The retention rate among such people is quite low (less than 20% in many areas of the world). I well remember attending nearly empty chapels in Bolivia. One example: in the southern Bolivian city of Tarija (which had about 50,000 residents), there were 4 small LDS branches, 2 of which met in the recently constructed chapel. Our branch (Rama 3) met in a rented house. The first week I was there, attendance was 5, including us, although there were over 250 members on the records. The other branches averaged between 10 and 20 members a week. As a missionary, it was depressing to attend a church meeting in a gleaming new chapel with half of those in attendance being missionaries. Imagine my surprise when a couple of months later in the mission office, I was informed that the church would be starting an aggressive building campaign: over 50 chapels would be constructed in the next year, including 3 new chapels in Tarija. Even to a 19-year-old missionary, that seemed insane. But looking back on it, it follows a pattern I've seen over and over in the church: build to the numbers on paper. In Bolivia, that meant spending millions in construction money to build chapels that were not needed. I suspect that this practice goes on all over the world. Look at the Conference Center. Given the church's broadcast capabilities, this was a building that serves no purpose whatsoever.
Another similar experience happened in Texas. When we arrived in 2000, members in the Houston area would travel by bus 4 hours north to the Dallas Temple. Our ward had a monthly temple trip that was reasonably well-attended. When the Houston Temple opened, it was fairly busy for a few months. But after that, it was deserted, even on weekends. It was not uncommon to see sessions with 4 or 5 people in them, and they would get temple workers to attend the session so that there would be enough for a prayer circle. Just before we left, the new temple president, ex-GA William Bradford, became so alarmed at temple attendance that he began a program called "Fill the Temple." Wards were assigned a two-day period during which they were responsible for performing all the ordinances (endowments, sealings, baptisms, etc.). Each member was expected to sign up for at least half a day to do ordinances. I just got an email from my old bishop putting the pressure on for us to sign up for our temple "assignment."
The church seems to be operating under the idea that if you build churches, people will come. But that isn't happening, so what you are getting is unnecessary building draining funds. And declining growth rates (and lower income rates for those joining) mean less income from tithing with greater expenditures for welfare. The PEF seems a response to that in that it's designed to increase economic stability for church members in underdeveloped countries, a win-win situation for the church. But at some point they are going to have to look at the return on investment from their building projects. Temples now dot the land, but they aren't generating the levels of activity expected (my friend told me that in his recent visit to Bolivia, the temple in Cochabamba was staffed entirely by American missionary couples).
So, Hinckley's building push has been, in my judgment, a net drain on church finances. The missionary program is dead in the water in the developed world, and construction in the underdeveloped world has drained finances further. Frankly, the church's downtown mall project is an important investment to them. If this project, now estimated at over $2 billion, fails, the church could for the first time since 1959 face real financial problems. My visit to the Gateway complex tells me that the downtown malls project is iffy at best. The Gateway is already entrenched with upscale tenants, whom the church will have to attract for their mall project to succeed.
I think we can see some of the effects of the church's financial stresses already: the firing of church maintenance workers and the subsequent push for members to clean and maintain buildings, the tighter restrictions on budgets, particularly for Scouting and Young Women, the increased reliance on members to house and feed missionaries, and the increased use of broadcasts from the home office instead of GA travel.
None of this is to say that I believe that the church is on the verge of collapse. It's not. But I do suspect that further belt-tightening is coming, and the church is going to have to rely more on its investments if it wants to continue to thrive.