I guess the real import in the minus numbers is that, over the years cited, they reflect a steady loss. This is no mere glitch in a larger positive picture. Larry
Can anyone give an idea how this compares with decline in attendance among other denominations over the same time? Are TEC numbers sinking faster than the “mainstream” churches, if so by what percentage?
The numbers do suggest the TEC decrease rate has tapered off in the last few years. Perhaps having someplace to go now that the ACNA is forming will increase the rate again?
Nigel, the Episcopal denomination was the fastest declining using 2006 data according to the Pew survey. The 2007 data is worse still. I don’t see where you are getting the “tapered off”.
Again the caveat, 2006 was a Christmas effect year meaning the average Sunday attendance was boosted because Christmas eve fell on the weekend. Thus, the drop in ASA from 2006 to 2007 was accentuated. Still, it is interesting to note that the only diocese to grow in ASA is one that is no longer part of the TEO, San Joaquin.
I have a question: how did they manage to arrive at only a 9% drop in ASA domestically from 1997 to 2007? If the domestic ASA in 1997 was 841,445 and in 2007 it was 727,822 that makes a difference of 113,623. The difference as a percentage of 841,445 comes out to 13.5%. What’s more telling, of course, is the drop from 2000 to 2007 which comes out to 15%.
But, hey, that’s not so bad. We probably have it worse in Canada if the Diocese of Huron is any indication. (For some reason a Monty Python sketch just popped into mind about rich retired old gentlemen in a comfortable English club each trying to outdo the other on how bad they had it growing up.) Since 1997 ASA in Huron has decreased by 24%. Just since 2000 it has dropped by 21%.
[blockquote]Again the caveat, 2006 was a Christmas effect year meaning the average Sunday attendance was boosted because Christmas eve fell on the weekend.[/blockquote]
But that’s only if the numbers are recorded improperly. When December 24th is a Sunday, Christmas [i]Eve[/i] services are technically celebrations of the next day. Some clergy will know this, some will not, so the “Christmas effect” for 2006 is not across the board.
#9, in e-mail correspondence to us back in 2006, TEC statistician Dr. Kirk Hadaway basically said there is no specific guidance on whether Sunday evening services should be included or excluded in the ASA calculations. Parishes are not necessarily “wrong” if they include Sunday night Christmas Eve data. There is explicit guidance to include Saturday evening Christmas Eve services if Christmas day is on a Sunday.
One would think that TEC could solve this whole Christmas effect very easily. There is already a separate box to include Easter Sunday attendance. Why not a box or two to include Christmas Eve and Christmas Day attendance. Then there could be a separate calculation “ASA excluding Christmas and Easter.” In years when either Christmas Eve or Christmas Day fall on a Sunday the Christmas data would be excluded from that calculation. In other years, there would be no need to exclude Christmas data, only Easter data. I would think that would be a very useful piece of data for most congregations and diocesan leaders as it shows what a “normal” Sunday attendance is.
#10, Please do not assume that the 100,000 decrease = the 100,000 attendees being reported by the ACNA. ACNA never claimed that its 100,000 attendees have all left TEC churches. REC is in ACNA. Those are not people who left TEC. Many AMiA congregations are new church plants. And ACNA numbers include Canadian congregations as well — obviously who did not leave TEC.
The fact that the numbers are similar does not mean they are directly related. Remember the ASA decline in TEC also includes those who have died and those who may have left for non-Anglican congregations.
The statistic to notice is what #7, CharlesB notes: from 1997 to 2007, the US grew by 34,000,000 or 12.7%. Even if TEC could have only gotten 1% of that gain, that is 340,000 people. Instead, during that time it lost 9 %. Also, I would point out that much of the loss was after 2003. For instance, look at D. of Atlanta – in 1997, between 17,000 and 18,000 ASA. In 2001 over 19,000 ASA. But in 2007, barely over 17,000 ASA, which in the 10-year period basically equaled no growth or only slight decline but 9 % decline from 2001 -07 – and, also, note especially, this was during a time in which Atlanta metro area grew by over 1,000,000 person, or @ 33% during that 10 year period. So, statistics can be misleadingly positive, even when they show negative trends. These numbers are really disastrous for TEC and they don’t even show the departure of the 4 dioceses as a whole. You would think these bishops would sit down and say, in their quiet moments, “I think we may be on the wrong track here.”
I checked one line and found the numbers are wrong. In NY, ASA declined from 23,032 to 20,755. That is a difference of 2,277. Divide that by 23,032 and the difference is 9.8%, not the reported 7%.
I did the same thing on 6 random lines of diocese and found that the numbers were off quite a bit in all but one case. I have to get dinner ready so I can’t stop for long but might suggest getting out your calculators to check for errors.
What is quite clear,though, is the overall trend is generally down and although the general ASA figures are the summation of approximations with not much precision, the chart still says “regression to extinction”. We need a spiritual “bailout”.
Far be it for me as a humble Canadian Anglican to say someone in TEC’s national office can’t do basic percentages but as I (#6) and others have pointed out since, there are some errors. More than a few as it turns out. The change from 1997 – 2000 is wrong for every province.
Ross and all who have calculated percentages. WOW! That is a pretty stunning difference. That bears a very close look. I will try to take some time to look at this more closely (and see if other documents with TEC statistics have similar errors) tonight.
Thanks, Ross, for catching the error. I checked four provinces for ’03 to ’07 and they got those percentages correct. So, I assume they just had a glitch on the ’97 to ’07 percentages( you did mean from ’97 to ’07, right?). I agree with you that the most telling figure is the 15% drop from the high in ’01 to the low in ’07.
Do any of our commenters have software that converts PDF files into Excel spreadsheets? We would welcome it if someone could convert this PDF file into a spreadsheet for us. I have such software on another computer, but I am travelling and don’t have access to it. Thanks.
If you do convert the file into Excel, please e-mail the elves: T19elves@yahoo.com
#22, Hoppper, if TEC were a typical business enterprise, it probably would have gotten a minority shareholders lawsuit against it long ago, as many of the actions and inactions of its leadership have been ultra vires for many years.
Of course, it is not only that errors can be made. It is when they are persisted in, insisted upon, and reported as faithful that the real problem is identified. Statistics don’t have repentance. Errors due.
I did a simple straight line extrapolation on several of the areas, and if we assume that line, the churches have only a very few years left before they pass beneath the survival mark. My untested assumption is that a failing church that slides below 50 members (if it had one hundred plus in a church big enough to hold such numbers) will be in such financial trouble that it cannot pay its bills. A viable church of fifty members can be doing well, but a failing church will have lost the will to live so that any attempt to increase revenue will be failure-prone. A lot of non-statistical assumptions, I am aware, but I think myu guesses are not far off. A straight line projection is also inaccurate, but I have had the time to graph a curve to extrapolate from. In any case, this is a patently moribund church. Five years more of such losses will create a vast financial strain.
Apologies for beating a dead horse, but re my #9 and The Elves’ #12: while there may not be specific guidance on the question of how to record numbers when Christmas Eve falls on Sunday, the liturgical fact is that Sunday = Saturday Evensong + Vigil Masses + All Sunday Services, [i]unless[/i] Saturday is of such rank to replace First Evensong of Sunday. And if a Major or Principal Feast with First Evensong falls on [i]Monday[/i], then Evening Prayer on Sunday is [i]not[/i] part of the Sunday attendance. But there are those who (ignorantly or not) take every opportunity to record attendance in the “Sunday” column whether or not it is [i]liturgically[/i] Sunday (not to mention those who fail to distinguish between [i]regular public services[/i] of Sunday and private or occasional ones, i.e. weddings, funerals, home communions, etc.) It may seem very minor, but it points to a lack of basic competence on the part of too many clergy. And a little competence would go a long way.
Hi again all,
Huge thanks to C. Wingate who sent us a complete Excel spreadsheet with all the 1997 – 2007 ASA data.
We’ve confirmed that there is a systematic error in calculating the percentage change in ASA from 1997 – 2007. It appears the percentages listed in the original file are for 1997 – 2006.
We’ll do some graphs later tonight or early in the morning and will upload the Excel spreadsheet then, probably posting it as a separate entry.
#30, thanks CryptoPapist for the helpful comment about how ASA should be calculated. That’s what I’d suspected was the case, but it isn’t explicitly spelled out in the ASA worksheet (or it wasn’t in 2006 which is the last time I checked it). Perhaps it is a case of such knowledge being “assumed.” But with statistics, it is always better to be very explicit about what should or should not be included.
I have been looking at this table for a couple of weeks. I just noted that they calculated the 10 year drop between 1997 to 2007 and the [b]four year[/b] change between 2003 and 2007. Why didn’t they calculate the five year drop between 2002 and 2007? In the 1996 to 2006 table, they did calculate the 10 and 5 year drops, er, changes. Very strange.
Since the 2006 data is inflated, the 1997 – 2006 change will be not as bleak as the 1997 to 2007 change.
I checked the [url=”http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/Members_by_Prov__Diocese_97-07.pdf”]membership page[/url] and they seem to have gotten the 10 year drop calculations correctly but they again calculate the past 4 year rather than 5 year drop.
So, out of about 800,000 parishioners, about 20,000 are in the departing dioceses. That’s about 2.5%. I didn’t know Quincy and San Joachim were so small. And the ASA of all the continuing churches?
Well, the continuing churches do have a lot of bishops.
Alone, this graph doesn’t say very much. Comparing it to other denominations might help a bit more. My guess is that the fastest growing faith is atheism / agnosticism / apatheism….
John, I think it tells quite a bit. Only five dioceses experienced overall ASA growth over the ten years: Alaska, Eastern Oregon, and three small dioceses in the southeast. From 2003 to 2007, no diocese grew. In the last year, only San Joaquin grew, and it’s an extremely safe bet that the rump diocese won’t continue that record into the next year. Hmmm….
OK, now for the really depressing numbers. From 1997 to 2003, 28 dioceses showed increases, as did both Provinces 4 and 7 as wholes. Most of these were of course on the small side (typical size seems to be about 7000-8000), but Virginia and Texas, both with 30,000, both appear. As seems invariably to be the case, the northeast shows almost uniform shrinkage, with only Maine in Province 1 and Pittsburgh, Virginia, and Southern Virginia in Province 3. The worst provincial numbers, across the board, are for 1, 2, and the upper midwestern 5 and 6.
The losses in Province 6 are probably the hardest to fight; but they are a small contributor to the whole. It’s impossible not to look at any of the trends, whether ASA or membership, and not conclude that 2003 was the crucial year. The controversy is hurting us, badly.
RobRoy — what a fascinating little discovery you have made.
Anyone want to let Kirk Hadaway know these discoveries? I think he is an honorable man.
Anyone else know if TEC calculated the five year drops over the past several years — and then calculated the four year one for this year? Or is there some other rule that allows them to calculate the four-year drop on alternate non-leap years?
Let’s repeat RR’s interesting discovery:
[blockquote]I have been looking at this table for a couple of weeks. I just noted that they calculated the 10 year drop between 1997 to 2007 and the four year change between 2003 and 2007. Why didn’t they calculate the five year drop between 2002 and 2007? In the 1996 to 2006 table, they did calculate the 10 and 5 year drops, er, changes. Very strange.[/blockquote]
I decided to look at the data by diocesan size, dividing the 100 dioceses up into 5 categories:
20,000 ASA or greater
15,000 – 19,999
10,000 – 14,999
5,000 – 9,999
< 5,000
It's striking to see the huge jump in very small dioceses. In 1997, 33 of TEC's dioceses had <5,000 ASA. In 2007 that figure has jumped to 48 dioceses, i.e. 48% of the 100 domestic dioceses. I don't know what the cutoff of "viability" is for a diocese, but this has got to indicate that dozens of dioceses are going to be facing severe struggles.
The 15 dioceses joining the ranks of the < 5,000 ASA grouping:
Western NY -30% ASA in 10 years
Rochester -26%
Kansas -25%
Western MO - 21%
El Camino Real -21%
Bethlehem -20%
Indianapolis - 20%
Milwaukee -17%
New Hampshire -15%
SW Virginia -15%
Rio Grande -14%
W. Michigan -14%
Missouri -11%
Maine -8%
Arkansas -6%
And these 15 dioceses may not be the only ones in trouble, or those in the worst trouble. 26 dioceses lost 20% or more in ASA in the 10 years from 1997-2007. (And 5 others lost between 19.7 - 19.9% in ASA which rounds up to 20% in the ASA table.)
It's striking how many of these dioceses have NOT been in the news.
Of the dioceses losing 20% or more, Quincy & Florida are about the only "notorious" dioceses getting alot of Anglican press. What's got to be worrying to anyone who cares about the future of TEC is the slow silent bleeding we're not hearing much about in dioceses all over the country.
The 31 dioceses that lost 20% (rounded) or more in ASA in the past 10 years:
Navaho Missions -39%
Northwest Texas -30%
Western New York -30%
Eastern Michigan -29%
Quincy -28%
Northern Indiana -28%
Central New York -28%
Northern Michigan -28%
Springfield -26%
Rochester -26%
Kansas -25%
Northwestern Pennsylvania -25%
Lexington -24%
Michigan -24%
Florida -23%
Wyoming -23%
Western Massachusetts -23%
West Tennessee -23%
Iowa -23%
Spokane -23%
El Camino Real -21%
Ohio -21%
Western Kansas -21%
West Missouri -21%
Western Louisiana -20%
Oklahoma -20%
Bethlehem -20%
Colorado -20%
Rhode Island -20%
Central Gulf Coast -20%
Indianapolis -20%
If I were Integrity’s puppet I would say that it’s a great thing that so many bigoted people are clearing out and leaving us the inheritance. Since I’m a Christian, I think that it’s a sinful neglect of the Great Commission.
If this graph belonged to a large American corporation they would be flying their jets to Washington asking for a bail out.
I guess the real import in the minus numbers is that, over the years cited, they reflect a steady loss. This is no mere glitch in a larger positive picture. Larry
Can anyone give an idea how this compares with decline in attendance among other denominations over the same time? Are TEC numbers sinking faster than the “mainstream” churches, if so by what percentage?
The numbers do suggest the TEC decrease rate has tapered off in the last few years. Perhaps having someplace to go now that the ACNA is forming will increase the rate again?
Nigel, the Episcopal denomination was the fastest declining using 2006 data according to the Pew survey. The 2007 data is worse still. I don’t see where you are getting the “tapered off”.
Again the caveat, 2006 was a Christmas effect year meaning the average Sunday attendance was boosted because Christmas eve fell on the weekend. Thus, the drop in ASA from 2006 to 2007 was accentuated. Still, it is interesting to note that the only diocese to grow in ASA is one that is no longer part of the TEO, San Joaquin.
20/20 was such a success, shall we shoot for 40/40 next? Well, at least now there’s a new business model we can put to the test — it’s called ACNA!
I have a question: how did they manage to arrive at only a 9% drop in ASA domestically from 1997 to 2007? If the domestic ASA in 1997 was 841,445 and in 2007 it was 727,822 that makes a difference of 113,623. The difference as a percentage of 841,445 comes out to 13.5%. What’s more telling, of course, is the drop from 2000 to 2007 which comes out to 15%.
But, hey, that’s not so bad. We probably have it worse in Canada if the Diocese of Huron is any indication. (For some reason a Monty Python sketch just popped into mind about rich retired old gentlemen in a comfortable English club each trying to outdo the other on how bad they had it growing up.) Since 1997 ASA in Huron has decreased by 24%. Just since 2000 it has dropped by 21%.
During the same period, the population of the USA wnet from 267 million to 301 million, an increase of 12.7%.
Is anyone so skilled in the manner of Excel to be able to present these figures in a graphical format?
[blockquote]Again the caveat, 2006 was a Christmas effect year meaning the average Sunday attendance was boosted because Christmas eve fell on the weekend.[/blockquote]
But that’s only if the numbers are recorded improperly. When December 24th is a Sunday, Christmas [i]Eve[/i] services are technically celebrations of the next day. Some clergy will know this, some will not, so the “Christmas effect” for 2006 is not across the board.
#8, I am good in Excel and do hope to put these numbers into graphic format soon, but it may not be before the weekend. I have a very busy week.
You can see the previous graphs we produced for the 2000 – 2007 TEC data here.
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/17400/
#9, in e-mail correspondence to us back in 2006, TEC statistician Dr. Kirk Hadaway basically said there is no specific guidance on whether Sunday evening services should be included or excluded in the ASA calculations. Parishes are not necessarily “wrong” if they include Sunday night Christmas Eve data. There is explicit guidance to include Saturday evening Christmas Eve services if Christmas day is on a Sunday.
One would think that TEC could solve this whole Christmas effect very easily. There is already a separate box to include Easter Sunday attendance. Why not a box or two to include Christmas Eve and Christmas Day attendance. Then there could be a separate calculation “ASA excluding Christmas and Easter.” In years when either Christmas Eve or Christmas Day fall on a Sunday the Christmas data would be excluded from that calculation. In other years, there would be no need to exclude Christmas data, only Easter data. I would think that would be a very useful piece of data for most congregations and diocesan leaders as it shows what a “normal” Sunday attendance is.
#10, Please do not assume that the 100,000 decrease = the 100,000 attendees being reported by the ACNA. ACNA never claimed that its 100,000 attendees have all left TEC churches. REC is in ACNA. Those are not people who left TEC. Many AMiA congregations are new church plants. And ACNA numbers include Canadian congregations as well — obviously who did not leave TEC.
The fact that the numbers are similar does not mean they are directly related. Remember the ASA decline in TEC also includes those who have died and those who may have left for non-Anglican congregations.
The statistic to notice is what #7, CharlesB notes: from 1997 to 2007, the US grew by 34,000,000 or 12.7%. Even if TEC could have only gotten 1% of that gain, that is 340,000 people. Instead, during that time it lost 9 %. Also, I would point out that much of the loss was after 2003. For instance, look at D. of Atlanta – in 1997, between 17,000 and 18,000 ASA. In 2001 over 19,000 ASA. But in 2007, barely over 17,000 ASA, which in the 10-year period basically equaled no growth or only slight decline but 9 % decline from 2001 -07 – and, also, note especially, this was during a time in which Atlanta metro area grew by over 1,000,000 person, or @ 33% during that 10 year period. So, statistics can be misleadingly positive, even when they show negative trends. These numbers are really disastrous for TEC and they don’t even show the departure of the 4 dioceses as a whole. You would think these bishops would sit down and say, in their quiet moments, “I think we may be on the wrong track here.”
I checked one line and found the numbers are wrong. In NY, ASA declined from 23,032 to 20,755. That is a difference of 2,277. Divide that by 23,032 and the difference is 9.8%, not the reported 7%.
DaveG-
I did the same thing on 6 random lines of diocese and found that the numbers were off quite a bit in all but one case. I have to get dinner ready so I can’t stop for long but might suggest getting out your calculators to check for errors.
What is quite clear,though, is the overall trend is generally down and although the general ASA figures are the summation of approximations with not much precision, the chart still says “regression to extinction”. We need a spiritual “bailout”.
Far be it for me as a humble Canadian Anglican to say someone in TEC’s national office can’t do basic percentages but as I (#6) and others have pointed out since, there are some errors. More than a few as it turns out. The change from 1997 – 2000 is wrong for every province.
Province
I accidentally hit submit before I was ready.
Province Reported Actual
1. -13, -17
2. -13, -17
3. -10, -14
4. -5, -8
5. -13, -19
6. -12, -18
7. -5, -12
8. -9, -12
In every case what is reported is less than what it should be. I suppose we can draw our own conclusions.
Ross and all who have calculated percentages. WOW! That is a pretty stunning difference. That bears a very close look. I will try to take some time to look at this more closely (and see if other documents with TEC statistics have similar errors) tonight.
Nice work folks.
Thanks, Ross, for catching the error. I checked four provinces for ’03 to ’07 and they got those percentages correct. So, I assume they just had a glitch on the ’97 to ’07 percentages( you did mean from ’97 to ’07, right?). I agree with you that the most telling figure is the 15% drop from the high in ’01 to the low in ’07.
Do any of our commenters have software that converts PDF files into Excel spreadsheets? We would welcome it if someone could convert this PDF file into a spreadsheet for us. I have such software on another computer, but I am travelling and don’t have access to it. Thanks.
If you do convert the file into Excel, please e-mail the elves:
T19elves@yahoo.com
Elves, I have that spreadsheet ready and will send it this evening.
#22, Hoppper, if TEC were a typical business enterprise, it probably would have gotten a minority shareholders lawsuit against it long ago, as many of the actions and inactions of its leadership have been ultra vires for many years.
Thanks, Phil. Yes, I meant 1997 – 2007. Shows how easily a mistake can be made.
Of course, it is not only that errors can be made. It is when they are persisted in, insisted upon, and reported as faithful that the real problem is identified. Statistics don’t have repentance. Errors due.
There’s a parable there, somewhere, IMHO.
I did a simple straight line extrapolation on several of the areas, and if we assume that line, the churches have only a very few years left before they pass beneath the survival mark. My untested assumption is that a failing church that slides below 50 members (if it had one hundred plus in a church big enough to hold such numbers) will be in such financial trouble that it cannot pay its bills. A viable church of fifty members can be doing well, but a failing church will have lost the will to live so that any attempt to increase revenue will be failure-prone. A lot of non-statistical assumptions, I am aware, but I think myu guesses are not far off. A straight line projection is also inaccurate, but I have had the time to graph a curve to extrapolate from. In any case, this is a patently moribund church. Five years more of such losses will create a vast financial strain.
I did the math for New Hampshire before reading the comments posted above. Good catches, all!
The 1997-2007 decline is actually 15% rather than the 9% claimed by ecusa.
What happened to the new people who were supposed to flock to ecusa after its adoption of the ‘new thing’ theology?
Apologies for beating a dead horse, but re my #9 and The Elves’ #12: while there may not be specific guidance on the question of how to record numbers when Christmas Eve falls on Sunday, the liturgical fact is that Sunday = Saturday Evensong + Vigil Masses + All Sunday Services, [i]unless[/i] Saturday is of such rank to replace First Evensong of Sunday. And if a Major or Principal Feast with First Evensong falls on [i]Monday[/i], then Evening Prayer on Sunday is [i]not[/i] part of the Sunday attendance. But there are those who (ignorantly or not) take every opportunity to record attendance in the “Sunday” column whether or not it is [i]liturgically[/i] Sunday (not to mention those who fail to distinguish between [i]regular public services[/i] of Sunday and private or occasional ones, i.e. weddings, funerals, home communions, etc.) It may seem very minor, but it points to a lack of basic competence on the part of too many clergy. And a little competence would go a long way.
Hi again all,
Huge thanks to C. Wingate who sent us a complete Excel spreadsheet with all the 1997 – 2007 ASA data.
We’ve confirmed that there is a systematic error in calculating the percentage change in ASA from 1997 – 2007. It appears the percentages listed in the original file are for 1997 – 2006.
We’ll do some graphs later tonight or early in the morning and will upload the Excel spreadsheet then, probably posting it as a separate entry.
Thanks again for all the helpful comments here.
–elfgirl
#30, thanks CryptoPapist for the helpful comment about how ASA should be calculated. That’s what I’d suspected was the case, but it isn’t explicitly spelled out in the ASA worksheet (or it wasn’t in 2006 which is the last time I checked it). Perhaps it is a case of such knowledge being “assumed.” But with statistics, it is always better to be very explicit about what should or should not be included.
I have been looking at this table for a couple of weeks. I just noted that they calculated the 10 year drop between 1997 to 2007 and the [b]four year[/b] change between 2003 and 2007. Why didn’t they calculate the five year drop between 2002 and 2007? In the 1996 to 2006 table, they did calculate the 10 and 5 year drops, er, changes. Very strange.
Since the 2006 data is inflated, the 1997 – 2006 change will be not as bleak as the 1997 to 2007 change.
I checked the [url=”http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/Members_by_Prov__Diocese_97-07.pdf”]membership page[/url] and they seem to have gotten the 10 year drop calculations correctly but they again calculate the past 4 year rather than 5 year drop.
So, out of about 800,000 parishioners, about 20,000 are in the departing dioceses. That’s about 2.5%. I didn’t know Quincy and San Joachim were so small. And the ASA of all the continuing churches?
Well, the continuing churches do have a lot of bishops.
Alone, this graph doesn’t say very much. Comparing it to other denominations might help a bit more. My guess is that the fastest growing faith is atheism / agnosticism / apatheism….
John, I think it tells quite a bit. Only five dioceses experienced overall ASA growth over the ten years: Alaska, Eastern Oregon, and three small dioceses in the southeast. From 2003 to 2007, no diocese grew. In the last year, only San Joaquin grew, and it’s an extremely safe bet that the rump diocese won’t continue that record into the next year. Hmmm….
OK, now for the really depressing numbers. From 1997 to 2003, 28 dioceses showed increases, as did both Provinces 4 and 7 as wholes. Most of these were of course on the small side (typical size seems to be about 7000-8000), but Virginia and Texas, both with 30,000, both appear. As seems invariably to be the case, the northeast shows almost uniform shrinkage, with only Maine in Province 1 and Pittsburgh, Virginia, and Southern Virginia in Province 3. The worst provincial numbers, across the board, are for 1, 2, and the upper midwestern 5 and 6.
The losses in Province 6 are probably the hardest to fight; but they are a small contributor to the whole. It’s impossible not to look at any of the trends, whether ASA or membership, and not conclude that 2003 was the crucial year. The controversy is hurting us, badly.
RobRoy — what a fascinating little discovery you have made.
Anyone want to let Kirk Hadaway know these discoveries? I think he is an honorable man.
Anyone else know if TEC calculated the five year drops over the past several years — and then calculated the four year one for this year? Or is there some other rule that allows them to calculate the four-year drop on alternate non-leap years?
Let’s repeat RR’s interesting discovery:
[blockquote]I have been looking at this table for a couple of weeks. I just noted that they calculated the 10 year drop between 1997 to 2007 and the four year change between 2003 and 2007. Why didn’t they calculate the five year drop between 2002 and 2007? In the 1996 to 2006 table, they did calculate the 10 and 5 year drops, er, changes. Very strange.[/blockquote]
I decided to look at the data by diocesan size, dividing the 100 dioceses up into 5 categories:
20,000 ASA or greater
15,000 – 19,999
10,000 – 14,999
5,000 – 9,999
< 5,000 It's striking to see the huge jump in very small dioceses. In 1997, 33 of TEC's dioceses had <5,000 ASA. In 2007 that figure has jumped to 48 dioceses, i.e. 48% of the 100 domestic dioceses. I don't know what the cutoff of "viability" is for a diocese, but this has got to indicate that dozens of dioceses are going to be facing severe struggles. The 15 dioceses joining the ranks of the < 5,000 ASA grouping: Western NY -30% ASA in 10 years Rochester -26% Kansas -25% Western MO - 21% El Camino Real -21% Bethlehem -20% Indianapolis - 20% Milwaukee -17% New Hampshire -15% SW Virginia -15% Rio Grande -14% W. Michigan -14% Missouri -11% Maine -8% Arkansas -6% And these 15 dioceses may not be the only ones in trouble, or those in the worst trouble. 26 dioceses lost 20% or more in ASA in the 10 years from 1997-2007. (And 5 others lost between 19.7 - 19.9% in ASA which rounds up to 20% in the ASA table.) It's striking how many of these dioceses have NOT been in the news. Of the dioceses losing 20% or more, Quincy & Florida are about the only "notorious" dioceses getting alot of Anglican press. What's got to be worrying to anyone who cares about the future of TEC is the slow silent bleeding we're not hearing much about in dioceses all over the country.
The 31 dioceses that lost 20% (rounded) or more in ASA in the past 10 years:
Navaho Missions -39%
Northwest Texas -30%
Western New York -30%
Eastern Michigan -29%
Quincy -28%
Northern Indiana -28%
Central New York -28%
Northern Michigan -28%
Springfield -26%
Rochester -26%
Kansas -25%
Northwestern Pennsylvania -25%
Lexington -24%
Michigan -24%
Florida -23%
Wyoming -23%
Western Massachusetts -23%
West Tennessee -23%
Iowa -23%
Spokane -23%
El Camino Real -21%
Ohio -21%
Western Kansas -21%
West Missouri -21%
Western Louisiana -20%
Oklahoma -20%
Bethlehem -20%
Colorado -20%
Rhode Island -20%
Central Gulf Coast -20%
Indianapolis -20%
If I were Integrity’s puppet I would say that it’s a great thing that so many bigoted people are clearing out and leaving us the inheritance. Since I’m a Christian, I think that it’s a sinful neglect of the Great Commission.