Utah’s Episcopal Bishop — the first woman to serve in that position west of the Potomac River — announced Sunday she would retire in 2010.
Congregations were told that Rt. Rev. Carolyn Tanner Irish would step down during her 14th year of service.
“It will be a retirement well-earned,” said Rev. Mary June Nestler, who has worked with Irish over the past 2½ years. “Few people work harder. She is unfailingly kind and compassionate, and it has been a great pleasure for me to be a part of her team.”
In 1996, Irish became one of the first woman bishops in the Episcopal Church, and the first female bishop west of the Potomac River. Nestler called Irish’s appointment an “incredibly important” accomplishment.
Update: A 10 year graph of some diocese of Utah figures may be found here.
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/Members_by_Prov__Diocese_97-07.pdf
says that from 1997 to 2007 there was a -18.1%change in active baptized membership in the diocese
..in a state that is growing and prosperous.
It should be pointed out that (as is typical for most dioceses) all of that loss is recorded from 2004 on; from 1997 to 2003 there was actually a 5% gain in membership in the diocese.
Well, obviously, the stats are wrong then.
Because when Gene Robinson was elected bishop, a huge influx of liberated oppressed minorities, along with all the enlightened progressives, were going to flood TEC.
Anybody know why these stats would be so seriously flawed, misleading, and biased?
To answer your question (#4), I’ll borrow a quote from a frequent commenter here:
“Heh.”
In order to preserve the important precedent inherent in this bishop’s position, will the next candidate be chosen from among unbaptized clergy of ECUSA? Unbaptized women clergy, specifically? I guess this was the pioneering effort to make the God of Many Understandings more known.
nwl, the precedent of course is no such thing. The economic acceptance of her Mormon baptism was perhaps unprecedented, and it appears you would prefer to differ with the conclusion of the committee that investigated the matter and recommended that course. But your statement that she is unbaptized is at best your opinion.
I’ll double you, Tar Heel: heh, heh.
The diocese is in rapid decline. It has lost 22.5% of membership in the past five years. Of course, the general population is booming, so if one considers the population adjusted growth, the numbers are even more dismal.
#7 You speak as if you either have direct information or an informed opinion on the form and matter of Irish’s baptism. Given I am ignorant of the facts, allow me to ask: was she baptized with water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?
Utah is actually the youngest and fastest growing state in the nation. But Episcopalians are too smart to have children …
Recommendation for a Darwin Award.
While I am no fan of +Irish, when she was baptized in the LDS Church, IIRC such baptisms were commonly accepted by Christian bodies. Only recently (the last 20 years or so) have their baptisms not be accepted by Christian bodies. There are many things to object to in her leadership and theology. I don’t believe the reception of her baptism is one of them.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
BTW, can we ever get a rule passed that will set a minimum size to a diocese? Say 5000 ASA?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
I cannot find a direct confirmation of this, but my recollection is that prior to her consecration, the matter was re-examined and the acceptance of her (Mormon) baptism when she was confirmed was reaffirmed. Now I personally would not have agreed to this. A few years prior to her consecration, I had a phone discussion of the issue with Bishop Haines in which, after some meandering, he opined that the best approach might be conditional baptism. Considering the twitting of her on this matter that comes up every time her name appears– and often, when her name doesn’t appear– it seems to me that it would have been better to take a “remove all doubt” approach.
Not that this really matters much, since on the presenting issues, it is laughable to insinuate that she has carried Mormon views into the Episcopal Church. Has anyone checked into Mormon doctrine on homosexuality recently?
Unfortunately, in plenty of Episcopal parishes the remaining members are pretty old. They’re dying off and their kids have left the church.
It would be interesting to see where most of them go. I suspect they leave organized religion altogether.
It does seem that strong leadership might be able to make a play for disaffected Mormons. I’m guessing most of them have had their fill of organized religion as well.
People aren’t just attracted to theology. They are attracted to strong leadership, vision and mission. Congregations generally – including liberal ones – aren’t that interested in reaching out into the community and often lack strong leadership. They might not be interested in strong leadership either, preferring to remain small.
Those churches that have strong identities tend to do better than ones that are lukewarm. Those that handle conflict well, do better than those where people can’t hold together. There might be plenty to challenge +Irish about, but this article doesn’t say much. Nor do the statistics.
RE: ” . . . this article doesn’t say much. Nor do the statistics.”
Sure they do. Especially in the light of this fascinating little nugget of information: [blockquote]”It should be pointed out that (as is typical for most dioceses) all of that loss is recorded from 2004 on; from 1997 to 2003 there was actually a 5% gain in membership in the diocese.[/blockquote]
22.5% of the membership lost, to be precise.
[i]Consequences.[/i]
But I can certainly understand why progressives wouldn’t want that to be so — and given that it is, would want it not to be publicized so that others may draw conclusions.
Consequences of her, or consequences of him? I’m not finding a lot of positive numbers in the “percent change 2003-2007” column, whatever the theology of the diocesan. And really, the consequences on that level are irrelevant. Either side has the obligation to teach true doctrine, and damn the consequences in the collection plate.
C. Wingate #13, I think the question here is not what she may have introduced into ECUSA, but, rather, what it says about ECUSA that someone who hasn’t even been baptized can be one of its bishops. Of course, John Spong can be one of its bishops, so it isn’t like the question turns on Mrs. Irish’s case.
What it says about ECUSA is that they determined that her baptism was acceptable. There’s a level at which this constant harping on “she wasn’t baptized” escalates into deliberate misrepresentation, because everyone knows that she was baptized by the Mormons. The problem comes with assessing whether the irregularity of such a baptism steps over the line. As I said, I personally would have gone for the “no doubt conditional” approach; but I don’t make the rules. I personally think the Vatican determination on Mormon baptisms violates their own principles, but I don’t make the rules there either. As far as the hierarchy is concerned, she has been baptized; and you can disagree all you want, but there has to be a point at which the hierarchy has to be presumed to have the authority to make these kinds of determinations. Anyone who is reading an acceptance of Mormon theology into this doesn’t understand the Western theory of baptismal validity.
OK, C. Wingate – and, I don’t believe you personally accept this – but the hierarchy has also determined that a man can “marry” a man. So, what are we supposed to do? Pretend such a marriage can occur just because the Episcopalian bureaucracy has spoken? Few bodies have less credibility to pronounce on substantive Christian questions.
C. Wingate, this is part of the problems of ECUSA. The woman is not baptized. Period. Not just the Romans, but every stripe of Orthodox Christianity considers her a catechumen *at best*. You have an unbaptized woman being
1) treated as a layman, IE communed in the first place
2) “ordained”, her ordination being almost as acceptable to 99.9% of Christendom as her baptism.
3) Made a bishop. See #2.
Other than that, hey no problem.. She seems to have married a man. This clearly makes her out of step even with ECUSA. How they deal with that is up to them. She gets a pension just like Spong. For being every bit as christian.
RE: “Consequences of her, or consequences of him?”
As Tanner was consecrated bishop of the diocese in 1996, and as the diocese experienced positive growth until 2004, then my reference to consequences was to the radical, public, official, national, legal, and formal acts undertaken and consented to by the highest legal body of our church.
That’s one of the many many things that made that act so different from the vacuous, irrational ramblings of rabidly heretical occasional bishops over the years.
RE: “I’m not finding a lot of positive numbers in the “percent change 2003-2007†column, whatever the theology of the diocesan.”
Agreed.
Sarah, there is a decline, but its strictly hypothetical. Correlation does not mean causality.
Why the increase in the first place?
#10: This may seem like nitpicking, but Utah is far from the youngest state in the union. Our new President is from the newest state (celebrating its 50th anniversary this year). Had the election gone the other way, our Vice-President would also be celebrating the 50th anniversary of her state’s admission to the union.
“I’m not finding a lot of positive numbers in the “percent change 2003-2007†column, whatever the theology of the diocese.”
It is much harder for a conservative diocese to grow in a sea of liberalism. South Carolina is a bit of a miracle (but the growth of that island of sanity has slowed or stopped, too).
“It should be pointed out that (as is typical for most dioceses) all of that loss is recorded from 2004 on; from 1997 to 2003 there was actually a 5% gain in membership in the diocese. ”
Look at the graph, http://tinyurl.com/8qqkx8 , and one finds that the ASA is going no where from 1997 to 2002, yet the membership is going up. Note how membership and ASA take a dive after 2002-3. The ASA fell 15.4% after 2002. So to be fair, the membership increases were very likely artifact, and this artifact made the losses even more pronounced.
“But it doesn’t prove causality!”
This is defense #2 when the liberals are presented with the dismal stats. (Defense #1 is to deny reality with “All is well” and “Church vitality.”) Does anyone claim [b]mathematical proof.[/b]??? Of course not. In order to do that one would need to set up a hundred TEO’s and in half let the liberals go off the deep end and in the other, conservatives would reign. Ain’t going to happen.
But if a football team or a corporation hires a new coach or CEO and ensuing statistics tank, can the coach or CEO whiningly claim “But that doesn’t prove causality!!!” No, they are out on their butts. So the TEO was holding its own in the late 90’s and early 00’s and then tanked after 2002-3. Statistics can be used to provide overwhelming evidence that Gene Robinson was really bad for business. John W needs to provide evidence to the contrary or stop repeating liberal defense mechanism #2.
RE: “Sarah, there is a decline, but its strictly hypothetical.”
No, the decline is not “hypothetical” — it is reality.
RE: “Correlation does not mean causality.”
You’re right.
In the absence of quantitative study, we’ll all just have to come to our own conclusions. ; > )
Heck — even were there quantitative studies that provided the correlation, we’d all just have to come to our own conclusions. And certainly TEC progressives have proven that when confronted with overwhelming reality, they can just deny it. So I would expect the results of a huge, decades-long, quantitative study — or even a lab experiment such that RR postulates — to also be denied as well.
RE: “But if a football team or a corporation hires a new coach or CEO and ensuing statistics tank, can the coach or CEO whiningly claim “But that doesn’t prove causality!!!†No, they are out on their butts.”
LOL. You’re right, RR.
But I think we need to recognize the underlying foundational worldview of the progressives in TEC — which includes, at least privately, the belief that [i]it doesn’t matter if all the conservatives or even moderates leave, because their beliefs shouldn’t have to be submitted to the lab of reality or consequences, but merely adulation and admiration[/i].
But — that kind of attitude is not, shall we say, very publicly appealing.
Ultimately, what we all need to do is wait for Liberal Defense Mechanism #3 or #4 to creep into the rhetoric which is “yeh — but who cares!”
All of the former defense mechanisms — “no, it’s not, everything’s great!,” and “okay everything’s not perfect but it has nothing to do with mass rejection of our worldview and gospel!” and “prove it!” — are merely the precursors to what is to come, and probably sooner rather than later.
nwl, it’s not “period”. It’s that you, personally, do not accept the church’s acceptance of her Mormon baptism. And after that it gets even muddier. Yes, the Orthodox don’t accept her baptism, and if you aren’t Orthodox, they don’t accept your baptism, or mine, or for that matter, the Pope’s baptism. That is not the theory the western churches, including the Catholics, ascribe to.
The other truth here is that nobody has really presented good solid evidence as to what church policy was towards Mormon baptism prior to her case. From what I’ve seen, the answer probably is that there was no set policy, and that every bishop and perhaps every priest was left to decide for himself. Therefore we don’t know how it was handled. It’s comforting for polemicists such as yourself to presume that they weren’t accepted at all, but based on what I know about Western baptismal theory, I’d bet that prior to today’s overheated climate, there were always some cases where those baptisms were accepted through economy. And it’s a lead-pipe cinch that the same thing happened in the RC church.
Turning to Phil: the thing is that the issue of Mormon baptisms falls into the debatable regions of baptismal theology, at least in the West. We don’t utterly reject the baptisms of heretics; indeed, according to the RC theory, anyone, not just a Christian, can baptize if they intend to do what the church does. The recent Roman determination against the Mormons is based on a judgement that what they intend to do is just too different from what the church intends. Personally I think that they are in dubious territory on that, because I think it is dubious that the minister intends with the kind of detail that they infer. On the other hand, as I’ve indicated, the matter is obviously questionable enough (considering how much it is being questioned!) to where I personally think a conditional baptism would have been prudent. Nevertheless, the point in all of this is that the matter doesn’t rely on any kind of theological innovation, as all of this discussion has fallen within the age-old theological confines of western theology. The conclusion to accept her baptism is at one end of the range of answers, but it’s not outside the range of possibilities.
At any rate, the real issue is that this has nothing to do with her personal theology (with which I do have great objections). I’m quite sure that Spong and any number of other heretics have utterly, unquestionably valid (at least in the West!) baptisms. People keep bringing this up as a cheap shot.
Sarah, on one level, the numbers provide no defense for either side. One has to do what one has to do, remembering the tale in the gospel where, having presented a series of hard teachings, Jesus is abandoned by all but his closest disciples.
C. Wingate, we’ll have to disagree. However, I do want to correct one thing you said: while it’s true that some Orthodox jurisdictions have, at various times, taken a more restrictive line on non-Orthodox baptisms, as a general rule, your statement is false. Trinitarian baptisms – i.e., those baptisms using the Trinitarian formula given by Our Lord and referring to the same Father, Son and Holy Spirit meant thereby (the latter not being the case in Mormonism, but there I go again) are accepted by the Orthodox Church as valid.
If we’re going to get technical about it, no Orthodox jurisdiction accepts any non-Orthodox baptism as “valid”. What the Antiochians and some others do is re-chrismate, which is taken to remedy the defects of non-Orthodox baptisms. This is an act of economy, not unqualified acceptance. Other jurisdictions do rebaptize. It’s misleading to count heads on the economy vs. rebaptism choice and make some claim for acceptance, because in both cases non-Orthodox baptisms are held to be defective; the difference is really as to what is needed to be done in order to remedy the defect.
The comparison of how Orthodox receive those baptized as *christians* is of no importance here. Mormons aren’t, period. As an example of how things get broken beyond repair, take the all too usual Episcopalian in vocation of the “One holy and living God” as a substitute deity in place of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The designer trinities of ECUSA will also get a baptism, not chrismation, if the person enters the Church. I can’t imagine Rome does any other.
nwl, it’s of no importance to you. It’s definitely of importance to me, because it is one of the issues with me and Orthodoxy. Your theory of who is and is not a Christian isn’t really of any relevance in the matter. If you are an Episcopalian still, or even a continuing Anglican or a Catholic, as far as the Orthodox are concerned, you are a heretic, just as the Mormons are heretics.
Actually an Orthodox layman. You bet I was a heretic. Mormons don’t come on the radar as heretics as far as I know; their trinity is just too far out. I was chrismated. But then, the *actual* Trinity was the only thing used in ECUSA in the 50’s when baptizing. As I pointed out, an Episcopalian being received nowadays has to be carefully asked about his baptism, including what was *said*. Three of anything is too usual nowadays, and only one particular Trinity is the one that is. That’s not just my opinion.
Churches are declining for many reasons. Theology may or may not be one of them.
+Irish might have handled +Robinson’s consecration a bit differently, which might have meant less of a decline. In this case, it has squarely to do with her leadership and not theology. But we don’t know.