We are being lulled into complacency by the royal consciousness. Who will loose us from this torpor that is immobilizing us? The problems facing our church are not financial or cultural. Our decline is not the result of not having the right programs in place, or that all the mainline denominations are in decline, or that the culture is against us. These are all symptoms of the underlying problems.
The problems facing our church are spiritual in nature. We have not been faithful enough disciples of Jesus Christ. We have not reached out to those around us with the Good News of Jesus Christ. We must not be content with attempting to hold the line. Simply trying harder will not be enough.
St. Paul said, referring to the gospel, “But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us” (KJV). Our sin is that we have treated our denomination as the treasure and the gospel as an earthen vessel. The royal consciousness will only drive us into a deeper stupor. We too need a forward movement.
[blockquote]Several of our dioceses face questions concerning their future viability as independent, self-sustaining dioceses. Of course, we know that the dioceses of Ft. Worth, Pittsburgh, Quincy and San Joaquin need financial support as a result of departures from the Episcopal Church of the majority of their churches and leadership.[/blockquote]
Wait just a minute. No such dioceses exist within TEC. I’m surprised Cn Michelle is not clear about that.
While fair-minded people can differ as to whether a diocese can leave the Episcopal Church, it does not necessarily follow that the Episcopal Church does not have the right to organize a diocese in those places where the diocese has departed the Episcopal Church.
Yes, Crypto Papist, those dioceses do indeed exist as dioceses which are part of the Episcopal Church; however, they exist in a vastly altered form.
Are you saying that the Episcopal Church has no right to reorganize a diocese once the leadership of that diocese has departed? That’s the sort of misapprehension of reality worthy of the lawyers for TEC.
I’m not aware that the Episcopal church has that right. I thought that dioceses were formed first at the local level, and then when there were enough parishes to form a diocese, they petitioned to become part of the National Church.
Of course I’m not a canon lawyer, so I may be mistaken.
The Anglican Curmudgeon has proved conclusively that TEC has not organized new dioceses, and has not complied with the canons in regards to even maintaining their Potemkin dioceses in those territories. It’s all been done by fiat since, in Mrs Schori’s eyes, might makes right.
I find the discussion of the reformation of particular dioceses a bit of a distraction from Canon Michell’s thesis. I think he is correct that across the board there is denial about the challenge before us. But having recently immersed myself in the growing “missional” literature and in conversations with missional practitioners, I would also like to suggest that we are deluded if we think if we just are clear on our faith and engage in various practices we have learned from the church growth movement that we will attract people to our parishes.
The whole attractional thing is being challenged and critiqued by Evangelicals. It is not a matter of doing better church, we need to move out into our communities living the good news.
The denial of some reasserters is that if we could just go back to some sort of status quo ante, with a dash of power point and a praise band, then we will “attract” people.
I’d love to hear Canon Michell’s thoughts on the missional conversation.
I would say, Richard, that all of this is as it should be. TEC (and the ELCA) needs to decline to the point of complete insignificance for the sake of Christendom in general, so at least the other denominations will know where not to go. This decline is indeed enhanced when the so-called leadership of TEC shows how little it cares about that decline, persecutes anyone who disagrees with them, and institutionalizes novel canonical interpretations as a means of asserting its power in the denomination. I would disagree with the author’s thesis, however, since we all know that the leadership is absolutely clear about the decline and knows its cause. They, however, would much rather see that terminal decline as a worthwhile tradeoff in exchange for getting their way.
#5 Richard,
I think your comments are spot on. Part of the problem with the dioceses that have been reorganized–and, yes, I am aware of the improper ways the dioceses have attempted to re-form; hence, my comments about the TEC lawyers–is that they are still rooted in the Christendom model of attraction rather than moving out of our buildings and being present in the places where non-churched people are naturally gathering. Lifeway Resources has done a good bit of research and thought on this.
I do think that the leadership of TEC is getting clearer in their message. Now, it is not a message that I find compelling. Timothy Fountain’s comments on this same day touch on some of these. The message is not necessarily about the Gospel as historically articulated by the Church. It is fuzzier, talks more of inclusivity and justice, and has shown not to attract many people.
Your final paragraph is equally compelling in this context. I have known people in the evangelical side of the Episcopal Church who thought that if they just put together a hot band that people would come. They didn’t.
I understand that the House of Bishops wants to focus on the emerging church at their next HoB meeting. What’s wrong with this? The really successful emerging churches are made up of evangelicals that are adding in a smorgasbord kind of way various sacramental practices. It amounts more to a pastiche of liturgy rather than the full bore of what one encounters in most American Episcopal churches. But, importantly, these are evangelicals the majority of whom would affirm a conversion to Jesus Christ with a strong commitment to the authority of scripture who are ADDING liturgical practices. In other words, their conversation is not our conversation. They are adding liturgical sensitivities and practices to an otherwise symbol- and numinous-deficient worship style. We want to learn the gimmicks–for want of a better term–of what they are doing liturgically to add them to our “bag of liturgical tricks.” What we ought to be learning from them is their understanding of scripture, commitment to and articulation of the Gospel in the normative ways that the Christian community has typically articulated it, and their more post-Christendom understanding of doing mission.
That may be more than you thought you asked for, and more than most people wanted to read, but they are all related to your–in my opinion–really inciteful comment.
Suggesting that TEC and the ELCA should decline “for the encouragement of others” as Voltaire remarked after Admiral Byng was shot on his quarterdeck after losing a battle!
Perhaps the difference between the pre-war crisis from which sprang the Forward Movement and today, or at least one of them, is that we are heavily invested in self-justification. TEC can’t admit its crisis in thge midst of its magnificent obsession with sexuality and those who leave need TEC to fail to justify their own trust in a structural solution: the creation of an alternative.
I cringe when I read my friend’s use of the word “denomination” with all its overtones of a designer group, self-contained in its self-image. It is as the Church in microcosm that we expose ourselves to the breadth and depth of our vocation to be the Church in mission, a microcosm fed by the riches of tradition and grace anchored in the Scriptures as they are lived in the constant cycle of Liturgy, Calendar, Feasts and Fasts, surrounded by the living voices of the “past” with its failures and triumphs. In such a context we are called to expose who we are and what we do to the light of Revelation and the Presence of Christ who through the Spirit revives His Church in the midst of the years.
#7:
Thanks, that is exactly what I am thinking about.
Concerning the Emerging Church, let me comment that I see that particular movement as it exists within Evangelicalism as a subset of a larger missional conversation. Missional thought as I read it is first and foremost a theological affirmation about the Gospel that makes the trinitarian mission of God’s gracious kingdom through Jesus Christ by the power of the Spirit.
When many Episcopalians do “emerging” it is a stylistic choice still wed to attractional Christendom core.
#7:
Is Lifeway affiliated with Ed Stetzer? I have found David Fitch, Alan Roxburgh, and Alan Hirsch very helpful conversation (and challenging) partners. I found Stetzer’s Breaking the Missional Code a bit disappointing, I fear.
But more significantly for me, who are the Anglicans in North America who are really discussing and practicing this?
Richard, #9. Your thoughts echo mine as well.
Richard #10. Yes. Lifeway Research is Ed Stetzer and others. They send out an occasional email re their research. Stetzer’s work is sort of mercurial for me. He sometimes has some brilliant insights, but his books seem to promise more than they deliver. However, he is asking a lot of the right questions. I don’t know of anyone in our world doing any thoughtful writing in this area. I’d sure be interested if there are. Phyllis Tickle has done some,but does it from an observational point of view. It’s worth the read, but not nearly as invigorating as Hirsch or Roxbaugh.
This all reminds me way too much of a simile I once heard for The Episcopal Church (and if capitalizing the T is not royal, what is?):
The evangelical approach of the Episcopal Church is to design a wonderful aquarium, with the water temperature set just right, marvelous corals and castles carefully inserted, and well-dressed colorful fish swimming in impeccable harmony, which the cross-culturally sensitive designer was careful to set down right beside the ocean so that all the fish that were attracted to it might easily jump in.
Ahhh… Candide “… pour encourager les autres.” WVparson- your comment, above is brilliant, spot-on, and beautifully put. But if the author of (or any commenter on) this piece imagines (bless their hearts) that Dallas will not eventually fall to the heirs of Mrs Schori he is much mistaken. That’s why all this congregational development stuff is superfluous, except for our amusement and temporary satisfaction. No parish, no diocese which remains in TEC will not inevitably become a much-diminished preaching station for heresy. Sure, sure my congregation is in great shape. Sure, sure I have a parachurch/emergent ministry, worship service, and congregation attached to my congregation. Sure, sure, sure we’ve very successfully rebranded ourselves in the community as the not-TEC church while remaining in TEC. Sure I have plans for the future which just might preserve my parish’s vitality and orthodox for at least another human generation. But in the end, my heart tells me it’ll sink along with TEC. One of the sensible and prophetic (in the old definition of the word) things Rowan Williams is reported to have said, on 18 Oct 2003, is that in the end the organization of Anglicanism in North America will be around mission-type bishops rather than institutional dioceses.
‘Urgency’ needs stipulation. There is a lot of urgency from those in leadership in TEC. Urgency about creating a ‘prophetic movement’ regarding human sexuality, a novel understanding of scripture’s plain sense, and about eliminating the opposition in respect of these urgently held convictions. I suspect the leadership would say the declines are not a matter of their denial — they geniunely believe that things will turn around when the church gets with the progressive program. Or, alternatively, they are in a fight which now has its own character and defines all decision-making — Pharaoh actually knew what the truth was and on occasion even confessed it, but he was in a fight to the death, and being sure others did not get their way dominated all his decision making. So too with the TEC leadership, and sadly, that doesn’t get turned around by ‘waking up from complacency’ — God judges it and then brings life from the dead. And, he works with those faithful to him in the judgment and through it.
I’ve elaborated in a blog I have just written at:http://afmclavier.wordpress.com/2010/01/09/encompassed-about/
#13:
Senior Priest, it is exactly what you note in the final sentence about Anglicanism as missional rather than institutional that I am interested in. And would also posit the heresy that that conversation within Anglicanism in North America will have to be inter-jurisdictional (which is obviously another topic).
But for my money I see Evangelicals having a very challenging conversation of what the Church has to be in the 21st century and we, of all stripes, are fussing around with cosmetic changes and engaged in chats about strategies that are 15 years old.
You are quite right in your 16th post, Richard, my friend. And I’ll for sure look at your blog post right now, wvp, my other friend on this thread. 🙂 In a sense, Richard, I’m sort of relieved to see this establishment/institutional rubbish falling to pieces before my own eyes, not only because has become incurably infected with heresy, but also because it had been in essence oppressive and deadeningly confining for a long time.
I didn’t mean to hijack the conversation to a side issue with my initial comment. I popped it off and then went on with a busy afternoon. I should have said first that I agree with the substance of what Cn Michell says. But the quote I pulled really did jump out at me simply because it was so wrong-headed in an otherwise fine piece by a normally insightful observer. Gosh, I do hope folks in Dallas are not going along with the fiction of a TEC diocese to their west. Sure, TEC can organize wherever they want. They can organize on the moon or my neighbor’s garage for all I care. But don’t call it a diocese until you establish it following your own Constitution and Canons.
#15, WVParson,
I agree with your concerns about the word ‘denomination’ in referring to who we are. I use the term advisedly and intentionally when I discuss TEC qua a distinct tribe that functions in ways not in keeping with the catholic church way of being the church. In the conversation about our present ills we are functioning as a denomination rather than as the church catholic.
#14, Seitz,
I think the whole notion of TEC having urgency is true; it is an urgency for the justice issues and narrowly-construed sense of inclusivity. Timothy Fountain has also articulated some of the urgencies of TEC.
I have focused on TEC’s lack of urgency about the losses. I agree with you when you say that the current leadership seems to think that once the progressive issues have held sway in the denomination (hat tip to WVParson) that things will turn around. If those pesky conservatives would just shut up or leave, everything else will be okay.
#18, Crypto Papist,
Point well taken. I agree wholeheartedly. My reference to the TEC lawyers was a shorthand way of acknowledging the unconstitutional ways that the Diocese of Ft. Worth was re-organized. At this point, I think that is beating a dead horse, but I also suspect that is true of this whole discussion.
Good to read these invigorating words from Canon Michell. To #16’s “inter-jurisdictional” I would like to add cross-denominational and even extra-denominational. I truly believe that if we choose to act while remaining within TEC we will need the fellowship of believers outside our diseased body–many of whom are fighting the same spiritual malaise–to remain spiritually healthy. And anyway, that’s the future of Christendom. It has always been the future. Along those lines, correct me church historians if I’m wrong, but haven’t most game-changing mission efforts been launched outside traditional church boundaries, resulting in transformation within them? And I agree 100% with Michell’s parting thought about our upside-down priorities. Haven’t we found this to be true in so many areas of life in these times: We put our trust in institutions and have been shocked to find that they have become ends in themselves, feeding on us rather than invigorating us. This is what the un-blinckered outside world sees clearly and it’s why they tend to avoid us like the plague.
#21: Agreed on having as broad a conversation as possible. But we seem to have an easier time talk with Baptists, Mennonites, Presbyterians, and others rather than other North American Anglicans who we suspect of being “schismatic” or “collaborationists”.
[blockquote] If those pesky conservatives would just shut up or leave, everything else will be okay. [/blockquote] In that case, Fort Worth and San Joaquin should serve as admirable test cases.
I learned much from this article.
The first thing we need is “two wealthy laymen” who will offer a special financial campaign to give 815 more money.
The next thing we need is for our Dear Leader to hold “meetings and conferences to deepen the discipleship of Episcopalians across the country” and for 815 to develop “devotional materials for Lent” to “unite the church in Bible reading and prayer” and to aim “to restore confidence in national leadership.”
; > )
Seriously — I do appreciate the article and did learn from it.
I don’t know anything about TEC in the 1930s. But the same tactics simply wouldn’t serve today, because today’s TEC leaders would offer a gospel of death rather than the gospel of life.
There are some truths here, but we Episcopalians (or Anglicans) need to beware: “We have found the enemy and it is us.” I agree that the leadership of tEC is completely out of touch with what is important to most Christians and are off tilting at the social justice, environmentalism, and peace windmills. But in our parishes and at the Diocesan level, we have to take the blame as well.
Tim Fountain’s response is right on: Most of our parishes are oriented to the stick-in-the-mud older generation. They don’t care about the next generations; instead they are focused on themselves and the way they remember the Episcopal Church of their youth. Their emphasis is on the status quo: maintain the beautiful churches their ancestors built, maintain the liturgy, and make sure the “right kind” of people are in the pews on Sunday. That way, they will be buried in the same church that is as beautiful as it was when their father or grandmother was buried there. Fountain refers to this as the church hospice.
I am a younger Episcopalian (44) with small children and I witnessed this attitude first hand at my previous church where I was a vestryman, very active in children’s and youth ministry, and a junior warden. I was often frustrated with our worship of the physical plant idol, often to the detriment or exclusion of mission and evangelism. The stalwarts said they wanted growth, but I found out only on their terms. We spent over $400,000 refurbishing our beautiful sanctuary (which I voted for while on the vestry). When we were done, the young in the church felt it was time to focus on missions and evangelism. Now we hear complaints that we don’t need a full-time youth minister because we don’t have that many youth in the church. And there is carping about spending money providing supper for youth group on Sunday night “for kids who don’t come to church here.” Kids who are members of the parish account for less than 1/3 of the kids at youth group. That sounds like evangelism to me.
Many, many times, I have regretted my commitment to this parish along with the massive amounts of time, energy, and money my wife and I put into it. It would have been so much better to find a school or community center to meet in and start an Episcopal church from a green field with no baggage.
I often asked my parish priest, who is no longer there and who I believe was frustrated with the same issues, if planting a church with no plans to ever build and own a building was antithetical to the Episcopalian way. Can you imagine the freedom a parish would have with no physical plant to maintain, care for, or grow comfortable and complacent in? Imagine being able to up and move to a larger facility or one that is more convenient for parishioners and leave the old building behind. I have a good friend who is a church planter (Evangelical Free Church) in Colorado. We had lunch over a year ago and I asked him if they ever planned to move out of the school where they meet now. He looked at me like I was crazy and said, “Not if I can help it.” The mortgage on a building would take money away from his church’s ministries and evangelism. Incidentally, this church which he planted 7 years ago, has twice the members and attendance as our 125 year old parish did. I should have sent my pledges to him.
Dioceses in the Episcopal Church need to have that attitude, although I’m skeptical we can elect bishops with that philosophy. Dioceses need to be focusing on young church planters who really want to evangelize and build a body of communicants, not a physically impressive building that will be three-quarters-empty in 50 years. That may mean that we let some parishes slowly dwindle away – will the last person who dies please turn out the lights and turn off the air conditioner?
Is there anger in my words? Certainly. But I am most angry at myself because I feel like I wasted 6 prime years of my life trying to force a parish to become what it didn’t want to be. And when I and others moved away or were driven away, the parish quickly returned to what it was before I joined, almost as if my family had never been there.
And that’s what we need to remember – we can’t just be angry at the Presiding Bishop for the state of the church, we also need to be mad at our Diocesan staff, our parish, and ourselves. Remember, “we have met the enemy and he is us.”
I agree Brian- my dream church would have no more than 30 families and meet in a store front. Actually, I have had my eye on a certain store front for a couple of years now.
I often feel that institutionalist sensibilities are underrated. The “lack of stability in any permanent values” is at the core of our problems and I would maintain that it is not aided by institutional indifference or weakness.
Many young people and families who inconsistently attend my parish are poorly evangelized to be sure. But they love the building, the beauty, and the historic institutional trimmings. They need someone to pass on clearly the realities of how to pay for it all and the need to fight the wars to keep it all going. However, they do want it all.
I also agree with those who say the issue isn’t our failure to embrace “the attractional model.” Rather, it is much more the toxic combo of TEC’s silly fashionable theology with a culture that simply doesn’t take religion very seriously to begin with along side multiple “churches” that send a mixed message about what it might mean even to do so.
Remember, when historians find fragments describing very early post-apostolic Christianity on the ground, we do not find much of the genuine theological richness or consistency of later institutional Christianity. Gyms and freer mobile forms also rarely sustain that rich historic accumulation very well over time. They are more like surgical strikes. Maybe that is where we have come. But in the long run — if there is one — we will want the institutional stability back.
Re: 26 – Good for you, SP. I’ll pray that whatever barriers exist to your storefront will be removed.
re: 27 – I’m not sure I like your generalization about young people. The younger, newer people at my past parishes and churches have often been the most passionate, dedicated, and committed. And often they carry the burden of the financial responsibility as well, although there are some older members who are faithful givers. Quite a few of the well-to-do stalwarts don’t pledge at all, but they are happy to give when a project comes up that they can put their name on. But they can’t be bothered to make a pledge (even a small one) to keep the lights on and pay the staff. As a former parish treasurer said in a vestry meeting, “Seeing the pledge list will shake one’s faith.”
I do agree that there is value to the institution – one reason I like tEC is because of the history and tradition. I find comfort in the liturgy. However, I’m concerned that the institution and tradition are impediments. The growth in Christianity in America appears to be in congregational or non-denominational churches. I referenced the Evangelical Free Church in my first post. I only use this as an example, although there are some interesting things there. Did you know that EFCA was formed in the 50’s, grew to over 100,000 members by the 80s and reported 300,000 members in 2003?
Is there a hierarchical denominational church that is growing at all?
I haven’t given up hope, but we need some courageous bishops, rectors, and parishioners to reverse the decline.
Lastly, I found this on the EFCA list of Distinctives and we Episcopalians could learn from this, “Membership requires commitment to sound doctrine as expressed in our Statement of Faith. However, a person is not excluded from membership because he or she does not agree on every fine point of doctrine.”
One book I’ve found useful is The Externally Focused Church by Rusaw & Swanson. You can find it at Amazon.com. We used it for a small group study at our former church and found it helpful to get focused on evangelism and mission.
David Carr,
I think that you misconstrued my comment. The only young people to which I was referring were defined as “Many young people and families who inconsistently attend my parish… .” This is not a generalization about young people — most especially of the committed kind. Your experiences with stewardship mirror my own. Still , the thrust of the more recent posts seems to be reaching the younger members by jettisoning the historic buildings and “old forms.” I’m not sure that’s what they want, and even if they want it, it remains a question whether or not it’s a good idea.
I do think we need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that conservative churches are growing. Some are, but we have to inquire as to why. I had coffee with an evangelical church planter who pointed out many of the conservative churches are experiencing decline, and that the grow in some is quite often at the expense of others. Evangelical theologian and church planter David Fitch points out that 80% of the congregations of the very evangelistic and evangelical Christian and Missionary Alliance are in decline, and the 20% growing are the mega-churches that are attracting from the shrinking evangelical and mainline churches.
I am not an apologist for the theological drift of TEC, nor do I believe that that drift is irrelevant to the decline of our church. But it is not a sufficient explanation for decline.
What is being called missional thinking is a movement away from anticipating that people will be attracted to us if we get church right (programs, theology, staff, liturgy), and move toward living out our faith in our communities, both in word and deed, in ways appropriate to our contexts.
There is a lot more, of course. But I, for one, am not for selling our buildings or dismantling our traditions. But raising up new congregations of new disciples is going to be a different task than it was -say- 30 years ago.
But I see few Anglicans of any stripe really wanting to grapple with this.
Re: #32
Richard,
You make some good points.
I have heard or read the same statistics about mega churches obtaining their members from other churches, therefore not substantially adding to the Body of Christ, but simply shuffling it around a bit.
The important question you raise is how do we win new converts to the Jesus Christ (not just tEC). And I suppose I am one of those missional types who believes we have to get outside of the church walls and tell the Good News to people where they are. That was Jesus’ and the original apostles’ method.
A friend recently sent me a message about youth ministry that quotes Episcopalian George Barna who says that at our current rate of evangelism, we are going to reach only 4% of the Millenial Generation compared to approximately 35% of the Baby Boomer generation. That number is truly frightening. We can’t wait for them to come to us – we have to go to them.
I agree with everything. But if have it on good advice that we need to take Barna’s numbers with a grain of salt sometimes.
My original point is this: we have ourselves to blame if we let the National Church distract us from the Great Commandment (which by the way says, “Go”, not “Sit behind your ivied walls and wait for them.”). Sure it’s annoying, infuriating, and it causes us to lose some parishioners. I find it sufficient to believe that the distractors will have to answer for their actions one day.
But that’s all happening far, far away and has no direct impact on what we can do each an every day to spread the Good News. We certainly shouldn’t get too angry and put too much energy into fighting that battle. If those of us where the rubber meets the road, the mission-focused laity and clergy can win new disciples of the church, then the demographics will change and the revisionists will be irrelevant.