I am a cradle Episcopalian. This is not the church I grew up in! Why is current leadership on a mission to destroy the church? Finances are in shambles, yet we continue on this road. What does leadership not understand [about the fact] that people are leaving and not interested in what your model is or what you are selling? I feel my church has been taken from me and now I must go somewhere else. My parish is already struggling, and I am one of the top 25 pledgers. They will have to figure out what they are going to do without my pledge. That unfortunately is the only vote I have!
David Launder
Shawnee Mission, Kansas
As I have said in so many contexts over the years, this will all come down to money. The “progressives” are not able to generate real growth in either membership or dollars. Eventually, this will be their downfall. Their parasitic feast on the Episcopal Church will be short-lived, as they will bleed it dry relatively quickly (in historical terms). It is very sad to see it happen, though, and to see so many hurt and disillusioned as a result. However, God is “doing a new thing” even in this sorrowful situation, preparing the wider Church to take on the mission set before it in a very different setting than the one in which TEC arose. If we keep our eyes fixed on what truly matters in the widest sense, Christ’s work of “drawing all men unto Him” will continue and His triumph is assured. That was the belief of our orthodox ancestors, and must be our focus in these painful, decadent times.
Yes, it is about money.
That is the reason for the law suits. One major target is endowment funds of dioceses and parishes. And, of course, real estate can be sold for ready cash. 815 is already abusing its endowment funds which has drawn criticism from its own audit committee, independent auditors and the attention of the Attorney General of New York. But it needs more money to control the Anglican Communion and to pursue its political agenda.
It is surprising how often the subject of endowments come up on the House of Bishops/Deputies list. And from 815 and General Convention we hear that the reason for the dire financial condition of the national church is simply a matter of shrinking endowments of the national church, of the dioceses and of parishes due to the recession. (Oddly, as someone pointed out, the budget adopted by General Convention assumes that the recession will last at least throughout the triennium.)
I have been surprised to learn that there is a coalition of endowed parishes. It seems that there are a bunch of parishes out there that simply would have to cease operations if they had to rely on pledge and plate for day to day functioning. And it seems that these endowed parishes can do all sorts of goofy things like clown masses and enhance their liturgy with body piercings.
Maybe I find all this endowment business crazy because I never was associated with an endowed parish. Everyone I can think of relied on pledge and plate for their operations. Very few even had a “rainy day fund” to cover large unexpected expenses or a temporary drop in pledge and plate income.
The same is true of the dioceses I’ve been involved with. There were in some cases a small endowment for the support of the episcopacy. But the bulk of the diocesan budget came from diocesan assessment and apportionment. And if the money didn’t come in from the parishes, the diocese had to cut expenses.
I too feel my church has been taken away from me. I need to amend that ….. it is not a feeling ….. it is a reality. My church has been taken away from me.
People are perplexed that this is about money? We live in a capitalist society, where people think “my money is my own” rather than “it’s all God’s.”
Perhaps the writer should be complaining about is the leadership in his own small church. It’s always easy to blame people hundreds of miles away. He should ask why his own church isn’t growing. I know of few people who join a parish because of denominational stances.
#3 Julia – have you told your rector? Has he stopped visiting you? Are people in your parish ignoring you? You should talk to your priest about it. Cyberspace is no way to build a church. It may stem the flow.
John — I am not a lay person. My bishop is my rector.
i don’t know but i would think that it would be quite difficult to keep a large old church operational without endowments. beautiful old buildings that are 100+ years old will always need repair and if it takes any specialization in repair that cost can get astronomical. peoples circumstances can change and perhaps they cannot contribute what they promised or for other reasons but i think plate offerings would be too varied to be relied upon for day to day operations for certain buildings. plus if there is foreign mission involved and large staffings…well i can understand it.
get a building that people love and grew up in and had wonderful spiritually fulfilling experiences in and a lot of them will leave money for it to go on.
I can relate to what David and Julia have said. (And like Julia the “my” bishop is “my” rector–at least at the moment.)
It has nothing to do with whether I get visits from anyone. Or even what happens in the particular congregation I am affiliated with. Good grief, I was the priest-in-charge and rector of missions and parishes before I retired.
But an “episcopal” congregation is, after all, part of a diocese. And dioceses are typically part of a larger “entity” such as a province, which in turn may be part of some even larger “entity” such as a communion and ultimately part of the largest one of them all: Christ’s one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
Back in the 60s, when I was ordained, Bishop Stephen Bayne became the Anglican Communion Officer–something new at the time–and emphasized the “interdependence and mutual responsibility of the body of Christ”. A big thing at the time. This concept draws on Paul’s image of the church as body, in which there is interdependence between the different parts of the body; where each member (be it foot, hand, etc.) has a need for the other members and what affects one member affects all.
A local congregation does not exist apart from the larger body–be it diocese, province or the entire communion. What others elsewhere in the body do affects the local congregation. And the converse is also true–what the local congregation does affects the diocese, the province and the entire communion. The presumed “autonomy” and “independence” of TEC is a myth and a heresy.
Now while there are “hold out” congregations in TEC that preserve and gaurd the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as received, there are a great many that do not. While there are “hold out” congregations that preserve and guard the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as received, there are many in the TEC that do not. And those “hold out” congregations and diocese are being diminished by those which have abandoned the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as received. In 2003, the Sunday after General Convention consented to the consecration of Robinson, 10% of the membership of the mission I served immediately withdrew their membership–in spite of the fact that I and the mission, the bishop and our deputies and the diocese were opposed, would not welcome Robinson into the diocese and would not perform blessings of same sex unions.
The reality is that TEC today is [b]not[/b] the church in which I was confirmed, it is not the church in which I was ordained deacon and priest. It does not hold to the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as received by and taught by the priests who formed me or the bishops who ordained me. Those very aspects of the church which drew me to be confirmed and ordained, TEC now repudiates. It now teaches a radically different doctrine. It enforces an radically different discipline. It practices in many places a radically foreign–dare I say idoltrous–worship. It is an entirely new thing, at most existing in an outward, superficial shell of what it once was.
Amen, Ken.
7. magnolia wrote:
[blockquote]i don’t know but i would think that it would be quite difficult to keep a large old church operational without endowments. beautiful old buildings that are 100+ years old will always need repair and if it takes any specialization in repair that cost can get astronomical.[/blockquote]
I can understand part of what you are saying. I was priest-in-charge of a mission before I retired in 2004. The building was nearly 100 years old. We knew there were some problems: the steeple was moving in one direction and the sanctuary was moving in another. One Sunday morning I felt the floor give as I processed down the aisle. Ripping up part of the floor the Junior Warden discovered considerable moisture and rot. Essentially we had to rip up the entire floor and its beams, jack up the entire building, remove the existing foundation, build a new foundation and floor, install bracing to prevent further movement of the steeple (they did the same sort of thing with the leaning tower of Pisa–I suggested we could make our leaning steeple a tourist attraction too) and sanctuary and install drainage in the church yard to prevent water getting under the church. And yes, that all costs 10s of thousands of dollars. Part of the cost was paid by insurance (which of course is paid for out of the church’s plate and pledge), part of the cost was paid by the diocese (which of course is paid for out the diocese’s apportionment) and a small part (namely the refurbishing of the pews which was not part of the major damage, but something which could be conveniently done while the pews were removed for the other repairs) was paid from a small restricted gift from former members, which I suppose you could call an “endowment”. It’s the only place I’ve ever been that had even that. We tried to get the neighboring Baptist Church to pay part of the costs, as their new parking lot had caused the problem.
In my travels around the Diocese of Dallas doing supply, I have seen a number of parishes that were dealing with significant maintenance issues (roofs, air conditioning, plumbing, etc.) without the benefit of endowments. It is possible for a healthy congregation to do that.
We know that in some places parish funds are being diverted by dioceses to other purposes. For example, a couple of decades ago a parish church in the Diocese of Newark was destroyed by fire. Bishop Spong and the diocese would not release the insurance money to the parish so they could rebuild. That money was diverted to other causes of Spong and the diocese. The parish started to rebuild without the insurance money, but while construction was going on, the diocese sold the property was sold out from under them. Guess where that money went. Apparently Bishop Bennison was doing something similar in Pennsylvania.
I suspect that Trinity Church, Wall Street, can afford to maintain its buildings from its current membership. We know, however, that its endowments are being used to foster political causes. Endowment grants have been used in an attempt to buy off African bishops. Endowment funds are used to prop up (and control) ACC and its office.
The use of endowment funds by 815 have drawn the concern of its audit committee, of its independent auditors and the state Attorney General. And 815 is not being “transparent” about how endowment money is being used.
While some money is being used to prop up the pseudo-dioceses of Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, Quincy and San Joaquin, if TEC wins its law suits (partly paid for with endowment money) and gains control of the assets of the Anglican dioceses, I can guarantee you that the endowment funds will not be spent to maintain century old empty buildings (or even newer ones); many church buildings old and new will be sold and the funds diverted to God only knows where. The same thing will happen in Virginia if 815 wins there.
Ken, you are probably right, “TEC is not the church in which I was confirmed.”
I can fully comprehend this as a complaint. If anything, I’m sympathetic. Thirty years ago, young families were in the habit of going to church; the church was a stronger presence in the community. Even 50 years ago, women participated more strongly. In my area, most women work. And unlike 100 years ago, most clergy aren’t as bright as their parishioners.
I’m not sure how interesting your complaint is descriptively. It’s true, but churches will reflect subcultures within the broader culture.
The Episcopal church has chosen to be conservative liturgically, yet theologically “pluralistic.” This is very much reflected by the practicality of most Episcopalians. In my neighborhood, with a great number of Jews and members of other traditions, defending “orthodoxy” would make me a bad neighbor (that is, if I took Orthodoxy seriously).
In more homogeneous communities, it’s easier to be clear about your faith in the public sphere. I’m guessing you live in the south, where a large majority of your friends and neighbors are already Christian. In those cases, defending Christianity is easy. There is a common language.
I’m not in a context where convincing people that there is a physical hell, and that a verbal assent in Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven, is an easy argument to make. I even have to convince people in my own parish that God exists. There are also individuals in my parish who have a strong belief in Jesus, but have told me that they are so thankful I don’t teach them that other people are going to hell. Do I risk their faith for my own righteousness? “Well, I know you love Jesus, but if you DON”T believe he’s the only way, you’re going to hell also.” In that case, they could easily say, “this isn’t the faith for me.” I’ve weakened their faith.
It may be that TEC is a mission church to non-believers. Ken, I’m not sure how you speak to who do not believe in Jesus, Christianity, or God, but for most of the people I meet, Christians represent an American Taliban. It is one thing to state the comforting truths of the faith to those who already believe. It’s another to be in a position preaching the Word to people who are not believers and are deeply afraid that Christianity is a violent religion. In my own church, 75% are returning after rejecting traditional Christianity. They read the bible, and think it is violent, judgmental, angry and amoral. They think that most Christians are hypocritical, have a deep insecurity that is reflected in their hatred of gay people, and have a God of “love” who is sucking millions of souls into hell. Is it an accurate view of the faith? No. But that is the context in which I am preaching. Its one thing to be in a neutral context. But I sometimes think I’m like one of the church fathers trying to convince the Romans that we can be good citizens.
I have a few Jews who come to church; three atheists. None take communion. But they all come to hear the Word. I know that preaching about the sinful lifestyles of others would diminish their faith. Telling them that Christianity is the only way would not be inviting. What they do want to hear is what you and I want to hear: that God loves them.
I would like to push you a bit: can you point to me a doctrine which the new TEC assents to on a regular basis? I’m not talking about the everyday sentiments that get tossed around, or a random rambling sermon by a half-educated rector.
Or are you saying that there are bishops in the church who have different interpretations of the doctrine that has been received? Well, maybe. I’m not sure how you could verify this. I think that most Bishops represented aspects of the same social, modernist Gospel that the church supported 80 years ago. I doubt you can lay that at the feet of the church.
The big change? The internet and the rapid exchange of ideas. Because of this, local contexts get trumped by the context of cyberspace. What’s happened is that before having a relationshp with your bishop, you can vet what he says and judge his statements. In the end, we get to assess someone not by their physical presence, the tone of their voice, or even their behavior, but by if the sentences they speak are identical to our own. the internet has actually made it harder for people to communicate, because it is one dimensional. And it excuses us from doing the hard work of working together in each other’s physical presence. That is one big change I see between the church of what’s happening now and the church of old. In the old days, we had to be with each other physically to argue. In the new church, we can argue each other over the internet, and discard each other for believing differently.
It’s not the same church, Ken. You’re right.
11. John Wilkins wrote:
[blockquote]
Ken, you are probably right, “TEC is not the church in which I was confirmed.â€
I can fully comprehend this as a complaint. If anything, I’m sympathetic. Thirty years ago, young families were in the habit of going to church; the church was a stronger presence in the community. Even 50 years ago, women participated more strongly. In my area, most women work. And unlike 100 years ago, most clergy aren’t as bright as their parishioners.[/blockquote]
Have you ever looked at the non-denominational community churches these days? They are filled with young adults and families. That is where they are going–not TEC.
[blockquote]I’m not sure how interesting your complaint is descriptively. It’s true, but churches will reflect subcultures within the broader culture.[/blockquote]
However much churches reflected “subcultures within the broader culture” in the 1950s-1960s, TEC represented a historical tradition that often stood over and against the popular culture of the day. And, in final analysis, Christ’s Church is to “reflect” (or rather “reveal” and “manifest”) the “culture” of the Kingdom of God to the secular culture in which it exists. The early Church did not storm the Roman Empire by “reflecting” the culture of the Roman Empire; to have done so would have been totally irrelevant. And for the Church today to reflect the culture back to the culture, renders the Church irrelevant and redundant. One might as well sleep in on Sunday mornings.
[blockquote]The Episcopal church has chosen to be conservative liturgically, yet theologically “pluralistic.â€[/blockquote]
I would submit to you that TEC has chosen neither. In many places the liturgy is corrupted and rendered a joke. And TEC is driving out both evangelicals and catholics and in the name of “inclusivity” and “diversity” becoming ever more monolithic. And, of course, as the Orthodox would point out–one cannot be “conservative” liturgically and “pluralistic” theologically. Eventually the bad theology will (as it is doing in TEC) corrupt the liturgy.
As Neuhaus said, “Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed.”
Re non-denominational churches:
Do people go to Non-denominational churches because of theology? If you look at places like Willowcreek or Saddleback, their product is a Christianish version of community organizing. Joel Osteen has a huge 10,000 member church. But does he talk about the cross? Not really.
I’m not sure how TEC ever stood against the culture: JP Morgan, FDR, and all sorts of people were parts of the culture. They didn’t stand against the culture like, say, the quakers or even Jehovah’s Witnesses did.
I’m sure that in many places the liturgy is, “a joke.” And in cyberspace, those “jokes” take on a life of their own. But you’ll have to do better than make anecdotal judgments on liturgy. Plenty of Episcopalians feel that non-denominational worship is a joke. But people love them.
Peck – I’m going to challenge you on this because it’s a bit vague: can you think of parts of the liturgy that must be essentially counter-cultural? I can be sure that the Eucharist reflects the kingdom of God. but I think we’d have to interrogate what the “kingdom of God” means. Is it essentially a religious version of Pax Americana? I don’t think we disagree on the theology. I think we disagree on the details. After all, in my view, the Kingdom of God is one where gays and lesbians know God’s love for them. This would have been quite countercultural – but it does seem that the kingdom continues to break in.
Of course, I don’t agree that TEC is driving out Evangelicals or Catholics. By and large, both Evangelicals and Catholics want to leave TEC. They don’t want liberals in the church. Unfortunately, since most conservatives have been leaving, the church is in the hands of theological progressives.
“Unlike 100 years ago clergy are not as bright as their parishioners.” Wow; Do you have this view about all clergy or just the ones in the TEC? Anyway, “bright” is such a nebulous tern anyway. Why do you judge it?
I have been blessed to know many clergy and laypeople whom I consider bright,.
Why would an Atheist want to come to church tiohear that God loves them?
I’m grown to really dislike the term “progressive” You spoke of judgmentalism. To me that is a really loaded, judgmental term since it always comes down in my expereince that the person using it mean that they are more progressive and “right” than the people who are theologically at odds with them. Most people do not to be thought of as not being “progressive.” I have a clergy colleague who happily calls himself a “progressive”. I have been around him for enough years to know that although a nice, intelligent, thoughtful man “progressive” for him means that Jesus was a great guy, but not God incarnate, that Jesus is but one way to the Father and that gays and bisexuals should be able to be married in the church. He also believes that the church is foundationally a social service agency, but that we mention Jesus because he was a wonderful community organizer who was imbued with the “spirit” of God but not in any substantially different way than any other enlightened spiritual teacher. This fellow regards prayer as “a nice way to talk about the power of positive thinking” but I’m still not sure if he believes in a God that actually DOES anything . This man is also a big fan of John Shelby Spong. If this is what the progressive church believes I am glad I am not a “progressive”.
I encourage David Lauder to vote in another way …. Wal*Mart cards are great for mission and thwart cash transfers to other (read diocese) coffers.
The post and series of comments sums up TEC quite well. As a former senior warden and one who invested (yes, invested) gobs of time, talent and treasure in the church only to see much of it subsequently destroyed, I have taken a few big steps back. The pledge has gone from more than 10% of income to less than 1/10th of 1%. It is amazing how the stewardship people leave you alone when your annual pledge might buy a nice dinner and a $20 bottle of wine. I am content to watch the downward death spiral from afar and invest no more time, talent, and certainly not treasure.
TEC has been co-opted by a group with a focused political agenda. The tactic is really quite clever. Keep the sheepeople in line by giving them traditional liturgy, vestments, smells and bells if you will. Throw in a lovely old building and hire a few starving students with good voices to beef up the choir. The result is that TEC has become a “platform” for social change which makes the church not much different from a labor union, a community organization, a lobbying group. Capture the real estate and endowment funds and use these assets to advance your political agenda — all in the name of Christ.
TEC is no long representative of the Anglican Communion or most of the local communities from which TEC derives its financing. If you are gay, hey, its OK; it is what it is. But when the majority of the people in seminary are gay and the priesthood is moving in that direction either literally or figuratrively and always vocally, it is too much for many people to take.
Most of the local parishes have become a social service agency and meeting place for the elderly. The altar guild is a nice club for elderly women. A tremendous amount of lip service is paid to the importance of families, young families, but most parishes provide little more than traditional Sunday School (a lot of it is now showing a movie) and passing our crayons. When Junior is 13 he has figured out that this place is one big sham, and he/she is (as Bart Simpson would say) ” I am outta here man.” The nasty old evangelicals and charismatics do a much better job with the youth as do the Catholics. The loss of youth has huge generational effects. And, NO, they will not come back with their kids once they are married.
Fundamentally it is a hopeless situation and truly the last great “hustle” to be perpetrated on those who believe. It is Gresham’s Law reincarnated.
“Thirty years ago, young families were in the habit of going to church; the church was a stronger presence in the community. Even 50 years ago, women participated more strongly. In my area, most women work. ”
http://www.st-vincent-depaul.com/history.html
The Catholic church seems to have no trouble growing her flock. My parish has gone from a church of 20 families 60 years ago to 3,500 families now (about 15,000 souls in all). We have gone from less than 1% of the Christian population to some 20% of the Christian population (in this Southern Baptist stronghold, where Catholic used to mean “idol worshiper” not long ago).
This weekend will be the kick off for the years children’s religious education (about 7,000 kids under confirmation age). With the need to provide classroom space, 2 adults/class of 20 we are very full, running classes (volunteer run with a very detailed syllabus, and folks popping in every day to make sure you follow it) 6 days a week.
#14 – I should have, perhaps, used the term “well-educated.” I’m not making a normative description. It’s just that 100 years ago, it is the pastor who was expected to know a lot about a wide variety of topics. Newspapers printed sermons. I consider myself well-educated, but there are a number of PhDs in my congregation, and they challenge me – in a loving way, of course – when my work is up to snuff. Empirically, there are just a lot more people with masters degrees.
#14 Why do Atheists come to church? I think there are a lot of reasons. Community, ritual, a sense of the sacred. And perhaps hope that they will, someday, be touched. It’s a rare atheist, but it is exactly those people we should be reaching. The lost sheep. I understand why people who already believe want to be reassured about Jesus’ presence. I’m perplexed why Christians don’t try to evangelize those who don’t believe in God.
I don’t know your colleague, but as a “progressive” I do believe that Jesus was God incarnate, but there are risks with what people hear. For some, this sounds like Jesus was a superhero. For me that raises more questions than it answers. I also think that, for progressives, God is exactly what happens. God is not merely a “noun” but the event itself, the catalyst for transformation, both personal and corporate – in the heart and for the people of Israel. I admit, I’m always confused by the disdain people have for community organizing, serving the orphan, widow and poor, speaking truth to power against the political authorities. These seem to be natural fruits of the spirit, examples of how Christians should behave in the public sphere.