Check it out. Note that according to this, active baptized members went from 61,859 in 1997 to 49,977in 2007 in the diocese.
Check it out. Note that according to this, active baptized members went from 61,859 in 1997 to 49,977in 2007 in the diocese.
Judging from the ASA, one is led to conclude that even the 49,997 active baptized members are not very active.
But isn’t that about average, tj, 1/3 of the membership being in church on a given Sunday?
True Jeffersonian, but if line above is correct, they are distinguishing between active and inactive members. How inactive can they be and still be counted as active?
In every parish I have ever been part of, the people who actually went to church on Sunday were the same week after week. This is not to say that they never missed, but it was not like you had all the members coming once every three weeks. You had same 30% of the members coming virtually every week, and then Christmas and Easter people showed up who you had not seen since the previous Christmas or Easter. Does showing up twice in a year make you an active member? Or are you an active member if you don’t go at all, but your parents do?
Actually, as percentages go, if you look at the years after 2000, it is worse, as there was slight growth going into that year. And, of course, they have had to deal with a scandalous bishop, even by TEC standards.
The 2002 through 2007 record for the diocese is bad with Membership down 12 percent, ASA down 16 percent, and the increase in Plate & Pledge 10 percent short of inflation. Add up these numbers and you get a minus 38. What is truly alarming is that 28 dioceses did WORST than that. For example, check out Florida, Eastern Michigan, Western New York, Kansas, Rio Grande, and Northwest Texas for some even grimmer stats. Statmann
I was part of this Diocese during this period and the odd thing is this poor result was even after a Diocesan push for growth and expansion with financial investment, consultants, workshops, and strategic planning. There was even a member of the Bishop’s staff in charge of church growth. I would truly say that my fellow priests from many different theological backgrounds supported growth in membership and some made varied attempts at growing their parishes. Some parishes grew, some remained static, and some shrank and even closed during this period, but clearly the momentum toward decreasing numbers won the day. How could this have happened even after such a dedication to growth? Even though I would consider myself theologically conservative, I am not one to quickly blame this decline on the Diocese’s overall theological liberal outlook, as both liberal and conservative parishes grew and both liberal and conservative parishes shrank and closed during this time. Certainly, the conflict with Bishop Bennison didn’t help a Diocese already in decline for many years, but how come this didn’t work? I don’t think I am able to answer that question, because it requires a complex answer. But my gut reaction is not one church was planted during this period which left growth to existing parishes, many of which were too sick to grow.
Revdons, that’s a very helpful and interesting comment. Thanks for helping us think beyond the straight numbers and put them into context. You’re asking some good questions. I wish more in parishes/dioceses that are shrinking would think about the situation as you have.