Attendance data shows Episcopal, Presbyterian USA, and UMC churches declining locally while non-denominational and charismatic congregations grow. Is this a market trend, a spiritual verdict, or something more complicated?
Join the debate to comment
Reading is free. Members pay to post — that's why it stays clean.
Add your commentMy uncle is a UMC pastor in the East Bay and he told me something I think about a lot: 'We lost the children of our members and spent thirty years pretending we didn't.' That's the real story. It's not that the mainlines said wrong things. It's that they stopped saying much of anything with conviction, and young people can smell that from a mile away. I say this with love because I grew up UMC.
Born and raised in the Sunset District, baptized at a Presbyterian church on Noriega that my grandparents helped build in 1962. That building is half-empty on a good Sunday now. But I refuse to call that a 'spiritual verdict.' My grandmother prayed harder than anyone I've ever met and she did it in a pew that's now rotting. Growth doesn't equal faithfulness. The early church was ILLEGAL and still spread. Can we please retire the idea that attendance numbers are God's report card?
Here's my hot take that I know will get me roasted: Pentecostal growth in SF is mostly demographic, not spiritual. A significant portion of that growth comes from immigrant Latino and Filipino communities who brought their tradition with them. That's not evangelicalism 'winning' some theological argument against Presbyterians — that's just people attending the church that matches the culture they grew up in. Credit where it's due to those communities, but let's not make it into a referendum on doctrine.
okay but can we talk about the flip side? some of these fast-growing non-denoms in SoMa and the Castro are essentially personality cults built around one charismatic (pun intended) pastor with zero accountability structure, no denominational oversight, and a theology that changes based on the pastor's podcast that week. the mainline churches have CENTURIES of checks and balances. yes they move slow. thats sometimes a feature not a bug.
I moved here from Atlanta two years ago and what struck me immediately is how the evangelical churches here actually engage the city on its own terms — they're doing homeless outreach in the Tenderloin, running ESL programs, hosting addiction recovery groups. The mainline churches I visited felt like lovely museums with organ music. Beautiful, yes. Urgent, no. And in San Francisco of all places, you need urgency.
Faithfulness isn't measured in butts in seats, it's measured in whether you preached the whole counsel of God regardless of whether people liked it. Period. A church that tells San Francisco exactly what it wants to hear and fills up every Sunday is not more faithful than one that tells hard truths and loses half its congregation. Read Jeremiah. Read Ezekiel. Popularity was never the metric.
The mainline decline in SF is actually a global Western phenomenon and has nothing specifically to do with faithfulness or theology. Secularization follows education levels and income. San Francisco is one of the most educated, highest-income cities in the country. The sociological literature on this is extremely clear. Attributing it to 'relevance' or 'conviction' is honestly just motivated reasoning by whichever side is using it.
lol the episcopal church in SF spent the last two decades arguing about property law and gender liturgy and then wonders why nobody under 50 shows up. meanwhile my pentecostal church in the mission has three services on sunday and turns people away. its not complicated guys
Genuinely curious question for the Pentecostals in this thread — how do you handle doctrinal accountability when someone in your congregation claims a new prophecy or word from the Lord that contradicts established teaching? I ask sincerely because I've seen this go sideways badly at two different charismatic churches I visited in the Bay Area. The emotional experience is real but who's testing the spirits?
Can someone please fact-check the premise here? I've seen the same stat thrown around but the Episcopal Diocese of California has actually planted several new congregations in the last decade. Grace Cathedral's attendance is doing fine. A few struggling suburban parishes does not equal a 'trend.' I'm so tired of people using Bay Area data selectively to score theological points for their team.
I went to Glide Memorial for years and I want to push back on the idea that mainline churches have no passion. Cecil Williams preached with MORE fire than half the evangelical pastors I've heard. Glide was feeding thousands of people every single week and that building was PACKED. So the story is more complicated than 'mainlines are cold and dying.' Some of them just preach a different gospel than the one you want to hear, and you're calling that faithlessness.
nobody wants to say it so ill say it: a lot of these evangelical church plants in SF are funded by out-of-state donors who specifically want to 'reclaim' the city as some kind of culture war trophy. thats not the Holy Spirit thats a political strategy with worship music. i have receipts. ask me about the church plant in the richmond district that received $400k from a network in oklahoma. growth funded by culture warriors isnt the same as organic revival.
Should Christians pray to saints — or is asking Mary and the dead for help straight-up idolatry?
56 comments
Did Christianity give birth to modern science — or did the church spend centuries trying to strangle it in the cradle?
56 comments
Does God choose who gets saved, or do you choose God — and is Calvinism secretly making God into a monster?
55 comments
Do humans have an immortal soul — or did the church steal that idea from Plato and dress it up as Scripture?
55 comments