Among some of the reasons for this failure to keep and recruit younger people, I would list the following:
1. The abandonment in the early 70’s of a National Curriculum for Church Schools.
2. The failure to have a unified teaching and age for confirmation, and the lack of emphasis by our bishops of the place on confirmation.
3. The moment toward ordination to an older and older age, along with making ordination almost exclusively a “second career” track for people.
These two reasons are closely related because it is younger leaders who have the best chance of reaching their own generation for Christ.
This is bang-on. Read the entire piece.
Okay, I read the entire article. Sorry … it’s hooey. The plight of the Episcopal Church has to be understood within the context of the plight of liberal Protestantism, not only in the U.S. but also Europe. It has nothing to do with recruiting or curriculum strategies, none of which can stand against the corrosive powers of modernity. The Episcopal Church is but a tiny part of mainline Protestantism, yet all of mainline Protestantism has fallen. No denomination has prevailed; no Protestant denomination found the “solution.” Why not?
[blockquote]However, nothing points to our continued decline more than this simple fact; for almost my entire life, I have been near the median age of Episcopalians. I joined the Church when I was 12 and I am now 64! [/blockquote]
And that will probably still be true in 20 years when he is 84! Think of what this will mean for membership and ASA.
I am surprised that both Kevin and Kimel are not stating two truths instead of either/or. Bishops handing over responsibility to committees and the loss of confirmation may in fact be modernity issues — but that does not make them any less destructive.
And as for the liberal protestant decline (if that is what worldwide anglicanism is): Take away the immigrant (hispanic) numbers from the last 25 years and what would the demographic for the Roman Church show?
I agree about the increasing secular social and intellectual tone of society and with that the increasing social acceptance of nonbelief and even antibelief. When I moved to NC in 1974 Bishop Fraser told a group of new clergy, “Boys you’re fortunate to be living in a part of the country where people think going to church will do you some good.” Serving in county seat parishes for 15 years I saw the social pressure for church attendance diminish.
Commissions on Ministry tend to be made up of people from middle-class large parishes who prefer their own sort, and the CoM relieves the bishop of the responsibility for recruiting clergy. The changes of the early 1970’s – women clergy, Commissions on Ministry, the General Ordination Examination, the Church Deployment Office among others were intended to break up the old boy network and were marginally successful in doing so. As I look back 40 years I think they were well-intentioned but not good over all for the church.
No. 4 cseitz, I don’t know what the national or international statistics for the Roman Catholic Church are, but I can report that in my RCIA class last year there were 40 of us, and a total of 2,015 across the archdiocese. That’s for adult converts; I don’t know what the numbers were for infant baptisms and youth confirmations. Again, that’s only one diocese, and I know the overall statistics are not that promising elsewhere, but to my mind these numbers are very positive.
The demise of the Episcopal Church has nothing to do with church growth blunders.
The interesting question remains: Can Protestantism stand against modernity?
I think not.
[i] Edited by elf. [/i]
#6 Laura, are you in the South?
#8 NewTrollObserver, yes, Archdiocese of Atlanta.
Dear Al (Fr) Kimel — “it assumes I am trying to make a pro-Catholic polemical point. I am not.” This assurance is helpful, though was not at all clear.
In a region like Dallas, we count our RC friends as allies, even as we both understand challenges specific to our own ecclesial realities. Your remark did indeed sound like yet another of your usual–grosso modo, ‘anglicanism=liberal protestantism’–put-downs, having left the Episcopal Church. I am glad to hear that was not intended. I assume the acids of liberalism attack with equal virulence Roman and Anglican Churches. If you wish to say that Roman Churches beat this back more effectively, I would say, may God have it be so, Amen!. But I would not seek to give various descending medals out for those who do this best — be they Baptist, Wesleyan, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Episcopalian. If modernity is the problem, then whatever church witness to the Gospel effectively sets this back, ought to be worthy of our support. “And blessed are they who take no offense at me.” I am not persuaded that the Roman church is the vanguard against assaults on the Gospel. Much of what I hear in Dallas is odd Vatican 2 liberalism.
“But the Rev. Martin’s assertions remain vacuous.”
I disagree. I think they are relevant and I think you are out of line. Rev Martin’s comments are as relevant as your own.
Modernity is a complex thing. Or maybe I should say coping with modernity is to cope with a number of complexities. So Fr Kimmel’s blanket statement does not get my assent as it stands. I actually think that part of the problem is that some of the very good theological work done in the academy, and in the church, does not find its way into the teaching and practical expression of the church’s life at the congregational level–a packaging and distribution problem in a way, which brings me to Martin’s 3rd point.
I think part of our great demise is precisely the superabundance of second-career leaders in the clerical ranks who did not have the formation that comes with slow, patient, unhurried reading in philosophy (Christian philosophy) and theology and in the Bible, of course–study not undertaken in the heat of political and ecclesial crises–and therefore they fall into the worst theologies (or theosophies!). Anything will convince them and they go with one of the cultural winds blowing about. Quite apart from what they contribute to the loss of numbers, much of what is said is just banal or, at least, thin gruel for needy souls.
Would like to say more but must sign off. Get ’em young and train ’em, slowly and steadily!
Gee, what a lot of non-issues. How about “Failure to believe the contents of the Nicene Creed by laymen”, preceded by “Failure of catechism for laymen”. No educated and believing laity, then no educated and believing clergy. Clergy don’t grow on trees, they come from laity. Garbage in, garbage out. See last 40 years. Next 40 too. It doesn’t improve with age. Failure to wanting to love God as he really is and has revealed himself in the Church. Fr. Kevin’s reasons don’t even come up to be examined until things like this are addressed.
Bishop Spong “confirmed” people. So did Pike and his successors. Confirmed in WHAT, exactly? That’s a useful question.
It is never too late to make the right decisions and I hope there will be a Christian revival but I don’t believe that national church leaders, who seem to be obsessed with the GLBT issue at this time, will focus their energy on teaching children the Christian religion. This is something that must be done by individuals, local parishes, Priests and Bishops who want to proclaim the faith.
What’s happened is that (in affluent countries) the BAD reasons for religious belief have disappeared: with the availability of effective technology people don’t look to religion to heal them or make the corn grow; with the social pressure off secularism is socially OK. So only a minority of people will be religious and then only if churches have something special to offer, geared to attract a niche market.
Conservative evangelical churches have found their niche market: socially conservative Americans, who are horrified by what they see as chaos breaking in. So they beat out liberal Protestant churches, which have nothing special to offer. But that’s not a good long-term strategy because that demographic is shrinking relative to the population.
BTW Al, if you’re suggesting that TEC is pooping out because it’s liberal, please note that the Roman Catholic Church, for which you shamelessly abandoned Anglicanism, has the highest attrition rate of any major religious organization in the US. ‘Nones,’ individuals who have no ‘religious preference,’ 35% are former Roman Catholics–whereas only 24% of the population is Roman Catholic. And that 24% is, for the time being, remaining stable only because of mass immigration from Catholic countries.
As the Real Moderate that I’ve tried to make everyone understand that I am, I fall somewhere in the middle [of course]. ; > )
It’s really pretty impossible to mention a mainline liberal Protestant denomination’s decline without pointing out that they have a lousy product and thus fewer customers. Not even the emphasis on the “locally good product” can take away the taint of the dreadful brand. I have masses of friends and acquaintances — and close relatives — for whom 20 years ago TEC *was* a valid Christian church option — and for whom now it is not. In fact, those close family relatives left the parish — and TEC — where they were confirmed and their babies baptized. It is simply not an option for them.
That being said, I’d assume that Dean Martin is in the midst of a series of reasons and that he will work his way into the mess of TEC, rather than merely the various processes that have gone wrong.
The other thing is this. There needs to be *some* discussion among the actual Christian believers in TEC as to what we can do right even while the national church brand is corrupt and heretical and likely to auger further into the ground. It’s not as if one can wave a magic wand of “orthodoxy” over the various declining bits and all would be well again. That’s the area that I would assume that Dean Martin would address. What can orthodox Anglicans do where they are — in their parishes or dioceses — that can at least not be dreadfully mistaken, even as we deal with the facts regarding TECusa in general. To name one body — the Diocese of South Carolina is and has been consistently growing *despite* the brand of TECusa. What are they doing right? What are they [still] doing wrong? Inquiring minds ought to want to know! Particularly the inquiring Anglican minds who are not convinced — as are, understandably, converts to Rome — that Protestantism is inherently wrong and doomed to demise.
“Take away the immigrant (hispanic) numbers from the last 25 years and what would the demographic for the Roman Church show?”
That probably depends on the church and the diocese. And I don’t think Jesus cares about country of origin. My church is Anglican, and it happens to be true that we are predominantly white–BUT, we also have a good many latinos, Nigerians, Ugandans, Sri Lankans, and others attending our church. We very much wanted to house a diocesan Korean ministry, too, but unfortunately had a “space” problem.
I think Dean Martin is partially right, but I agree with Sarah that the problem is “content” and “message”, not just the age demographic. You can’t evangelize as a “Christian” church if your message is truly not Christian. People, especially when they’re Scripturally-literate, see right through the “cloak” thing and move on.
“What can orthodox Anglicans do where they are—in their parishes or dioceses—that can at least not be dreadfully mistaken, even as we deal with the facts regarding TECusa in general”.
I believe that in the “Bible-belt” areas, it is hard to evangelize to TEC churches, even when the priests and/or message are traditional. Like it or not, when the National Church is seen to promote things like gay “marriage”, the conclusion drawn by many is that the Scriptures have been tossed, and anyone looking for a truly Christian church won’t get into that, even if the “local option” is good.
All we can do is keep plugging. What have we done locally? The rector, with integrity, insists that our church and diocese put out “the real thing”. Two of our musicians on staff, and the youth ministers, have come out of Biblically-based megachurch backgrounds. The “liturgical animal” is foreign to some and our rector gets around that with instructed Eucharists so people understand what is going on during the services.
Other than things like that, I’d say, “work your butt off and pray like mad”…
I moved my letter from DGA to DSC. It was as if I had changed denominations. DSC is doing it right and it starts with the bishop. My sense is that TEC’s problems arise from having non-believers teach seminarians who control episcopal elections.
You know, I shouldn’t limit my comment in #16 to the “Bible Belt”. Four years ago I was in a traditional church in a revisionist diocese. The church was growing well but the congregation was pretty much a “serve-me” parish who would not partner with and incorporate all the newcomers, and also would not open their wallets wide enough to let the moths fly out, so we were unable to fund a full-time associate’s position. As usually happens, the wonderful young rector held his own with that for a while, but eventually grew tired of “program acting like pastoral” and the local serpentine revisionist bishop trying to find a reason to declare the parish “conflicted” so he could ask the rector to move on. The rector “moved on” on his own to a much more traditional diocese, and the ASA in the original church dropped by 30%, because many there, especially the young families, wouldn’t tolerate “bait-and-switch” theology 101. I know a lot of the people who left, the vast majority went to local Baptist and/or non-denominational, Christian Bible churches. At the original church, the ASA remains “dropped”, and let’s just say the new rector is “Episcopal” to the core.
This happened in the Northeast but we all know stories like this all over the country. Also, when a lot of the RC pedophilia scandals broke in the early 21st century, we had a large influx of angry RC’s at the above church. In 2003, when Robinson was elected, they all went back to their RC churches, regardless of what the rector or other believing members tried to say.
I could say I know there are A LOT of talented people in DioSC, both clergy and lay. But on the whole I bet a lot of their evangelistic success stems from a wonderful theological homogeneity amongst the bishop, clergy, and laity. In other dioceses there can be ideological wars amongst those; which, in my view, detracts from local evangelism.
In sum, on the “small” scale, I think my current parish is growing because both the bishop and rector are strong, sound Christians; so is the rest of our staff, and we have a wonderful, Spiritually-hungry(in a good way), racially diverse, populous community to draw from. He won’t, but if for any reason our rector all of a sudden decided to start preaching Borg and the “sanctity” of homosex, the majority of our membership would walk out and be yet another TEC failed statistic.
Youth and energy and building for the future are necessary and great, but if you lack a Christian foundation, you have largely nothing.
2 cents may be all this is worth–Blessings.
🙂