It appears from the parish newsletter that a group of parishioners representing less than half are leaving to start their own Anglican-aligned parish under the oversight of Uganda province. Presumably in a new location (?) as no mention is made of a parish vote.
If only 40% of the congregation are leaving, then there is no question of their keeping the property. As they are not, there bishop’s threat to sue is an empty threat since there is no valid reason for him to sue them as they join the Church of Uganda and come under +Guernesy. It sounds though as if a majority were going to leave: some must have changed their minds.
This report is not accurate.
1) About 15% of the parish left, not 40%
2) I never threatened the parish which was already a member of the Network. I did remind them that they could not take the property, which is held in the trust for the Diocese. We had worked out a DEPO agreement which had been in place for a year.
3) The parish is florishing under the leadership of a new conservative but loyal priest, The Rev. Phillip Jackson.
The headline (on the original article, not just here on T19) is obviously incorrect. Another American parish did [b]not[/b] quit, since the majority of the congregation remains under TEC jurisdiction in its original buildings. Some members quit because they did not agree with the desire of the majority to stay put, and formed their own separate congregation.
There is now a comment following the original article from the Bishop of Arizona. The congregation was indeed under Bp. Steenson pursuant to a DEPO agreement. The proportion who left may be smaller than 40% (the bishop estimates that the Episcopal parish retained 85% of its members). The title to the buildings is apparently in the diocesan trust, so the breakaway group could not have taken them with them, even if they were the majority and even if Arizona followed the California legal precedents.
Only small number … blah blah.
Most Episcopalians are very content … blah blah.
Just a handful of malcontents .. blah blah.
Mission and minstry go on …blah blah.
Individual can leave, parishes cannot …..blah blah.
Did I hit all of the relevant responses?
The departure of a substantial number of a congregation, whether 15% or 40% is indeed a serious matter. However, so is faithfulness to the truth, which is not served by representing that “Another American parish leaves” when that is clearly not the case.
Do the numbers mean anything? On October 5th, Bp. Smith reported in his blog that 7.5% of the parish (75 out of 1000) left. Today he reported it in Geoge Conger’s blog to be 15%. What will it be tomorrow?
I agree that the headline of this article and George Conger’s article, and the CEN article are all wrong and misleading.
I wonder if the departure of the group–whatever the percentage–was precipitated by Bishop Steenson’s announcement of his departure for Rome. Arranging another DEPO bishop under current circumstances might have been felt to be too much bother for too little gain.
I just love +Smith’s comment “a new conservative and loyal priest”. Where do you place your emphasis bishop? One of the other comments on Conger’s blog – “40% ASA likely left, way to keep those who do not attend bishop!” I wish them luck in this new endeavor.
I think the report specified active membership – usually a smaller number than membership. The real acid test will be which one is healthy five years from now – it could well be both or neither. The reality for TEC though is a new competitor has opened up shop down the street. Like New Coke the New Thing is resulting in a loss of market share which is bad if you are in the business of saving souls. I am sure that Brian is satisfied in that the property remains securely within TEC’s portfolio – from the photo it loooks very nice. 🙂
Nor is this an sign of TEC “unraveling.” George+ is getting a bit hyperbolic here. More like a trickle. Wait till a year after GC 2009, and we’ll see if the total number of communicants including clergy that have left since 2003 exceeds those that exited in the 1970s. And how many decide to return after they get tired of interior squabbles in their new convocations, as some did in the years after 1980.
Hey Bob, you can call it a trickle, but when the largest parishes in a number of dioceses leave it’s a significant trickle. This trickle as you call it is putting a big hurt on many dioceses in terms of ASA and finances. But, continue to play the minimizing game. pecusa loses thousands of members a year, but it’s only a trickle – pretty soon that trickle will be from a national church of less than 2 million members. Meanwhile, the realignment adds churches, members and church plants.
The trickle grows:
The leadership of St. Stephen’s in Sewickley, the largest church in the diocese [Diocese of Pittsburgh] in both membership and Sunday attendance, has announced its intention to realign with a different Province of the Anglican Communion.
BfB, you may be correct about the appearance of a trickle … but when the churches leaving are some of the biggest in dioceses, and you have at least 3 dioceses getting ready to leave, that trickle would appear to be on its way to becoming a stream. And if GC2009 goes all the way to rescind B033 and to allow for SSBs, I believe you are absolutely correct that we shall see what numbers begin to leave then. But as has been pointed out so many times, TEC is very technical with the numbers, just like Bp Smith tried to do on this one. If 150 left Ascension, and they were part of the 400 ASA, then basically 40% of ASA left. But if the parish is carrying 1000 membership, which may or may not be accurate, and the 150 was just from that membership, then 15% may be technically correct, but equitably incorrect, if the 150 were truly active members (which if they cared enough to leave, one would have to believe they were active and part of ASA). TEC’s number crunching is simply not credible. Most people know that members are not re-counted once a rector takes over until he/she resigns and a new rector comes in. For instance,I know a parish in my diocese that has carried a membership record of 2300 for 10 years. But its long time rector recently resigned. When a look was given to see how many persons had contributed anything in the previous 3 years, the membership role was cut to 1450. One other thing BfB, Episcopalians are generally not the kind of folks to make a loud noise when they leave. They usually simply walk away, like the almost 1000 people did from this particular church. So the idea, for instance that TEC has over 2,000,000 members is probably absolutely ludicrous, especially since it has in the 780,000s (or less) for ASA. And a church with only that small an ASA can’t afford too many withdrawals, no matter how small they may be. If I were KJS, I would worry about even a trickle and try to understand what was causing it before it became the torrent that is likely after GC2009, though it might be a quiet torrent (people just leaving and not saying anything).
Well, this is one instance where conservatives would be hard-pressed to say that ‘the orthodox paid for the parish, therefore they deserve to keep the property.’ So, Barry Goldwater gave the land for the parish. He may be a conservative icon, but his support for gay rights in the military is well-known: “you don’t have to be straight to shoot straight.”
The simple fact is that nobody really knows how “previous generations” would react in the current situation.
One thing in observing these postings here, is the almost seamless shifting from a focus on the 9/30-10/1 deadline, to now waiting for GC’09.
I admire your patience folks. Or is it inertia?
In any case, the reality is that folks are leaving TEC, quietly as a personal choice, or publically as a parish or perhaps now, even dioceses.
BfB may argue that those leaving are a mere trickle, or KJS can argue that the numbers are insignificant around 5%, or any other spin may be put on the matter. But those spins do not amount to a hill of beans. People are leaving TEC. Those who deny the fact, are merely fiddling while the place burns down, for they are doing NOTHING to stem the flow.
As many have pointed out, the membership rolls of most parishes/dioceses are hopelessly wide of the mark and obsolete. IMO, the only real way to judge the health of a parish, is the ASA. If that goes up, then growth is noted and it is healthy situation. If the ASA goes down, then the place is doomed to die.
Unless TEC changes its focus and direction, IMO, they are doomed to join other defunct operations, such as buggy whip manufacturers, or whalebone stiffened corset manufacturers
#23, I think there has been a shift to GC 2009 for two reasons: first, it isn’t that far off now. But second, and mainly, the HOB, while it did not fully respond to the DES communique, did pause, as it were. There appears to be status quo to be maintained between now and GC 2009 according to the HOB statement, that is no approval for a bishop in a non-celibate homsexual relationship (or heterosexual outside of marriage, also, I would presume, as an aside) and SSBs will not occur publicly (whatever that means) without an official changing of policy by GC 2009, i.e. the apparent (and presumed) minority doing them now will continue; others (the presumed majority) will not do them at all until a change occurs. While some members of the HOB said they didn’t do anything in NO, they actually did. Where before there was ambiguity about what was official policy of TEC as a whole, now we know what the official policy is, and that some persons are not following that policy as to SSBs, based on C051 from GC2003. Now, that may not be enough for GS primates but it does represent a holding pattern not heretofore seen from the HOB. Thus, now everyone, I believe, is assuming that the AbofC will accept this statement as compliance with DES communique, and Lambeth will occur, probably with some notable absences, and life will move on in this holding pattern until GC2009, with the “trickle” continuing until GC2009 overrides B033 and also passes the policy to allow SSBs, and then I suspect the trickle will become a steady stream and the money flow will decrease sharply. Just my opinion, but I’ve watched TEC for 60 years, and I wouldn’t bet against me on this one. Also, between now and GC2009, there will be more and more litigation as singular churches do decide to leave, and there may be big litigation if one of the dioceses passes the second round of resolutions to leave before GC2009. But the money overall probably won’t suffer until GC2009 passes those policy statements regarding allowing the consecration of more non-celibate homosexual bishops and allowing SSBs as an official liturgy of the church.
The debate about numbers is interesting. For membership we use the parish roll which is updated every three years and to be on the roll you have to fill out a form. (that’s how you get to vote at the AGM) If there is a contentious local issue coming up, then there may be a spike in numbers as someone tries to garner support for their position by enrolling inactive (we call the C&Es;(Christmas and Easter folk). The stats are generally fairly correct.
regards,
Jon R
#24, I suspect that your analysis is probably quite correct as it is the sort of time frame a corporate body lives by. As such, it probably well reflects the probable course of action by TEC and +Cantaur.
MY comments would be thus. How can a pause in divisive action be considered to be a fact, if:
The status quo IS maintained and so, semi-public, semi-official, SSBs will continue to take place as before.
It is obvious that TEC continues to work towards enshrining SSBs in public liturgy.
Non-Celibate homosexuals will continue to be put forward for bishiprics. Whether they are elected or approved, this process will continue.
There has been no rejection of law suits against parishes by TEC as their normal modus operandi in dealing with those who cannot stomach TECs changes in basic theology.
The ABoC may be rolled by TEC’s mouth music, but the reality of the lie being told to him, and him trying to peddle this lie onwards, is just too painful to watch.
The GS primages are not likely to drink the hemlock offered by TEC and will continue to act as they see fit, ever more marginalizing the ABoC if he doesn’t take a stand against TEC’s innovations.
The *trickle* of those leaving, will probably include those from mainly two groups. The first, being those who were educated in the past and as such, are theologically orthodox and therefore, aware of the jarring oxymorons being preached by TEC. The second, being those with young children (TEC’s future) whom they wish to raise as Christians, who will/are taking note of this current unpleasantness and will shake the dust of TEC from their shoes.
If an organization loses BOTH its past and its future at the same time, it will die.
Those who care, are no longer waiting for silly TEC deadlines to arrive in order to make up their minds, for these deadlines are now, fundamentally, unimportant shadows, within clouds, within a mist.
Let’s not forget that the first deadline was 2006. We were told that GC had to settle this and they didn’t, so then it was 9/30. To extend to 2009 is just plain sick.
If you are still attending a TEC parish, then you are helping 815 in their numbers. I know that some of you are there to fight, but you are counted in the rolls as the “faithful remnant.” You need to go, and you need your leaving to be counted. Otherwise, you’re just a part of the propaganda.
As a person in leadership of Christ Church of the Ascension pre departure and a person in leadership of the departing portion of the parish, I can tell you that a majority of the parish would have supported a departure from TEC at an earlier date. Several factors impacted the ultimate outcome. Some felt the departure was taking too long and left ahead of the pack, diminishing the percentage of those seeking separation. Originally the plan was to seek to retain the property, which was acquired and built without help from the diocese. The delay in the decision to depart splintered the clergy, as well as the parish, with one priest leaving last spring. Following the HOB meeting in the spring, it became clear that 815 was not letting anyone out with their property without a fight. In light of the duration and cost of the fight to keep the property in the LA diocese parishes who departed in 2004, it was decided that we would leave without our property rather than engage the parish in a lengthy and costly battle. That decision not only impacted our Rector’s decision to accept an offer in the “safe” diocese of the Rio Grande, it also impacted the decision to stay among some of those w
(Don’t know what happened to the rest of the post above…)
some of those who had built the church, buried loved ones in the memorial garden, or who weren’t leaving if they weren’t going with the Rector. 11 of 14 vestry members, including Jr and Sr wardens, chancellor, clerk of the vestry and approximately 60% of the recent ASA. Some parishioners remain to support the third priest who will be leaving Christ Church of the Ascension the end of December, and those parishioners will join Christ Church Anglican parish at that time. The majority of Christ Church of the Ascension will have departed and the remnant will be struggling to keep the church financially viable, I suspect. Time will tell.
Thanks for the first hand account WPortebello – I wish your new parish a bright future – I know ya’ll must be very excited! One thing missed in most of these discussions is the demographic time bomb awaiting TEC – I am essentially Anglo-Catholic (of the old scotch and soda Episcopalian variety) – but I recognize that the Evangelical wing is the most growth oriented part of the Church (by definition). Its impending en masse departure leaves TEC with its senior citizens, a considerable number of homosexuals, and white cultural liberals – none of these demographics reproduce in numbers sufficient for replacement. Bob from Boone – even if it is a trickle or a stream – its the productive part of the Church – TEC may have more to fear from the grave (as an institution not as a religion)
Will they leave the property?
It appears from the parish newsletter that a group of parishioners representing less than half are leaving to start their own Anglican-aligned parish under the oversight of Uganda province. Presumably in a new location (?) as no mention is made of a parish vote.
What property? Oh, you mean the idol?
bl
If only 40% of the congregation are leaving, then there is no question of their keeping the property. As they are not, there bishop’s threat to sue is an empty threat since there is no valid reason for him to sue them as they join the Church of Uganda and come under +Guernesy. It sounds though as if a majority were going to leave: some must have changed their minds.
I believe this church was under the supervision of Bp Steenson.
We need further information on numbers, if there was a vote, etc. Anyone have any more solid facts?
the Bishop’s response (from Conger’s blog):
This report is not accurate.
1) About 15% of the parish left, not 40%
2) I never threatened the parish which was already a member of the Network. I did remind them that they could not take the property, which is held in the trust for the Diocese. We had worked out a DEPO agreement which had been in place for a year.
3) The parish is florishing under the leadership of a new conservative but loyal priest, The Rev. Phillip Jackson.
The Rt. Rev. Kirk Stevan Smith
Bishop of Arizona
The headline (on the original article, not just here on T19) is obviously incorrect. Another American parish did [b]not[/b] quit, since the majority of the congregation remains under TEC jurisdiction in its original buildings. Some members quit because they did not agree with the desire of the majority to stay put, and formed their own separate congregation.
There is now a comment following the original article from the Bishop of Arizona. The congregation was indeed under Bp. Steenson pursuant to a DEPO agreement. The proportion who left may be smaller than 40% (the bishop estimates that the Episcopal parish retained 85% of its members). The title to the buildings is apparently in the diocesan trust, so the breakaway group could not have taken them with them, even if they were the majority and even if Arizona followed the California legal precedents.
Only small number … blah blah.
Most Episcopalians are very content … blah blah.
Just a handful of malcontents .. blah blah.
Mission and minstry go on …blah blah.
Individual can leave, parishes cannot …..blah blah.
Did I hit all of the relevant responses?
The departure of a substantial number of a congregation, whether 15% or 40% is indeed a serious matter. However, so is faithfulness to the truth, which is not served by representing that “Another American parish leaves” when that is clearly not the case.
Do the numbers mean anything? On October 5th, Bp. Smith reported in his blog that 7.5% of the parish (75 out of 1000) left. Today he reported it in Geoge Conger’s blog to be 15%. What will it be tomorrow?
I agree that the headline of this article and George Conger’s article, and the CEN article are all wrong and misleading.
The headline should have read, “Another American Parish Splits,” rather than “leaves.”
I wonder if the departure of the group–whatever the percentage–was precipitated by Bishop Steenson’s announcement of his departure for Rome. Arranging another DEPO bishop under current circumstances might have been felt to be too much bother for too little gain.
I just love +Smith’s comment “a new conservative and loyal priest”. Where do you place your emphasis bishop? One of the other comments on Conger’s blog – “40% ASA likely left, way to keep those who do not attend bishop!” I wish them luck in this new endeavor.
And note that the bishop is reporting that only 15% of “members” left…it appears that the 40% refers to ASA, a more substantial loss.
I think the report specified active membership – usually a smaller number than membership. The real acid test will be which one is healthy five years from now – it could well be both or neither. The reality for TEC though is a new competitor has opened up shop down the street. Like New Coke the New Thing is resulting in a loss of market share which is bad if you are in the business of saving souls. I am sure that Brian is satisfied in that the property remains securely within TEC’s portfolio – from the photo it loooks very nice. 🙂
Nor is this an sign of TEC “unraveling.” George+ is getting a bit hyperbolic here. More like a trickle. Wait till a year after GC 2009, and we’ll see if the total number of communicants including clergy that have left since 2003 exceeds those that exited in the 1970s. And how many decide to return after they get tired of interior squabbles in their new convocations, as some did in the years after 1980.
Bob from Boone
I thought you were going to say wait until the year after 2009 to see whether the number of clergy exceeds the number of communicants.
Hey Bob, you can call it a trickle, but when the largest parishes in a number of dioceses leave it’s a significant trickle. This trickle as you call it is putting a big hurt on many dioceses in terms of ASA and finances. But, continue to play the minimizing game. pecusa loses thousands of members a year, but it’s only a trickle – pretty soon that trickle will be from a national church of less than 2 million members. Meanwhile, the realignment adds churches, members and church plants.
The trickle grows:
The leadership of St. Stephen’s in Sewickley, the largest church in the diocese [Diocese of Pittsburgh] in both membership and Sunday attendance, has announced its intention to realign with a different Province of the Anglican Communion.
parishtoolbox.org
BfB, you may be correct about the appearance of a trickle … but when the churches leaving are some of the biggest in dioceses, and you have at least 3 dioceses getting ready to leave, that trickle would appear to be on its way to becoming a stream. And if GC2009 goes all the way to rescind B033 and to allow for SSBs, I believe you are absolutely correct that we shall see what numbers begin to leave then. But as has been pointed out so many times, TEC is very technical with the numbers, just like Bp Smith tried to do on this one. If 150 left Ascension, and they were part of the 400 ASA, then basically 40% of ASA left. But if the parish is carrying 1000 membership, which may or may not be accurate, and the 150 was just from that membership, then 15% may be technically correct, but equitably incorrect, if the 150 were truly active members (which if they cared enough to leave, one would have to believe they were active and part of ASA). TEC’s number crunching is simply not credible. Most people know that members are not re-counted once a rector takes over until he/she resigns and a new rector comes in. For instance,I know a parish in my diocese that has carried a membership record of 2300 for 10 years. But its long time rector recently resigned. When a look was given to see how many persons had contributed anything in the previous 3 years, the membership role was cut to 1450. One other thing BfB, Episcopalians are generally not the kind of folks to make a loud noise when they leave. They usually simply walk away, like the almost 1000 people did from this particular church. So the idea, for instance that TEC has over 2,000,000 members is probably absolutely ludicrous, especially since it has in the 780,000s (or less) for ASA. And a church with only that small an ASA can’t afford too many withdrawals, no matter how small they may be. If I were KJS, I would worry about even a trickle and try to understand what was causing it before it became the torrent that is likely after GC2009, though it might be a quiet torrent (people just leaving and not saying anything).
Well, this is one instance where conservatives would be hard-pressed to say that ‘the orthodox paid for the parish, therefore they deserve to keep the property.’ So, Barry Goldwater gave the land for the parish. He may be a conservative icon, but his support for gay rights in the military is well-known: “you don’t have to be straight to shoot straight.”
The simple fact is that nobody really knows how “previous generations” would react in the current situation.
One thing in observing these postings here, is the almost seamless shifting from a focus on the 9/30-10/1 deadline, to now waiting for GC’09.
I admire your patience folks. Or is it inertia?
In any case, the reality is that folks are leaving TEC, quietly as a personal choice, or publically as a parish or perhaps now, even dioceses.
BfB may argue that those leaving are a mere trickle, or KJS can argue that the numbers are insignificant around 5%, or any other spin may be put on the matter. But those spins do not amount to a hill of beans. People are leaving TEC. Those who deny the fact, are merely fiddling while the place burns down, for they are doing NOTHING to stem the flow.
As many have pointed out, the membership rolls of most parishes/dioceses are hopelessly wide of the mark and obsolete. IMO, the only real way to judge the health of a parish, is the ASA. If that goes up, then growth is noted and it is healthy situation. If the ASA goes down, then the place is doomed to die.
Unless TEC changes its focus and direction, IMO, they are doomed to join other defunct operations, such as buggy whip manufacturers, or whalebone stiffened corset manufacturers
#23, I think there has been a shift to GC 2009 for two reasons: first, it isn’t that far off now. But second, and mainly, the HOB, while it did not fully respond to the DES communique, did pause, as it were. There appears to be status quo to be maintained between now and GC 2009 according to the HOB statement, that is no approval for a bishop in a non-celibate homsexual relationship (or heterosexual outside of marriage, also, I would presume, as an aside) and SSBs will not occur publicly (whatever that means) without an official changing of policy by GC 2009, i.e. the apparent (and presumed) minority doing them now will continue; others (the presumed majority) will not do them at all until a change occurs. While some members of the HOB said they didn’t do anything in NO, they actually did. Where before there was ambiguity about what was official policy of TEC as a whole, now we know what the official policy is, and that some persons are not following that policy as to SSBs, based on C051 from GC2003. Now, that may not be enough for GS primates but it does represent a holding pattern not heretofore seen from the HOB. Thus, now everyone, I believe, is assuming that the AbofC will accept this statement as compliance with DES communique, and Lambeth will occur, probably with some notable absences, and life will move on in this holding pattern until GC2009, with the “trickle” continuing until GC2009 overrides B033 and also passes the policy to allow SSBs, and then I suspect the trickle will become a steady stream and the money flow will decrease sharply. Just my opinion, but I’ve watched TEC for 60 years, and I wouldn’t bet against me on this one. Also, between now and GC2009, there will be more and more litigation as singular churches do decide to leave, and there may be big litigation if one of the dioceses passes the second round of resolutions to leave before GC2009. But the money overall probably won’t suffer until GC2009 passes those policy statements regarding allowing the consecration of more non-celibate homosexual bishops and allowing SSBs as an official liturgy of the church.
The debate about numbers is interesting. For membership we use the parish roll which is updated every three years and to be on the roll you have to fill out a form. (that’s how you get to vote at the AGM) If there is a contentious local issue coming up, then there may be a spike in numbers as someone tries to garner support for their position by enrolling inactive (we call the C&Es;(Christmas and Easter folk). The stats are generally fairly correct.
regards,
Jon R
#24, I suspect that your analysis is probably quite correct as it is the sort of time frame a corporate body lives by. As such, it probably well reflects the probable course of action by TEC and +Cantaur.
MY comments would be thus. How can a pause in divisive action be considered to be a fact, if:
The status quo IS maintained and so, semi-public, semi-official, SSBs will continue to take place as before.
It is obvious that TEC continues to work towards enshrining SSBs in public liturgy.
Non-Celibate homosexuals will continue to be put forward for bishiprics. Whether they are elected or approved, this process will continue.
There has been no rejection of law suits against parishes by TEC as their normal modus operandi in dealing with those who cannot stomach TECs changes in basic theology.
The ABoC may be rolled by TEC’s mouth music, but the reality of the lie being told to him, and him trying to peddle this lie onwards, is just too painful to watch.
The GS primages are not likely to drink the hemlock offered by TEC and will continue to act as they see fit, ever more marginalizing the ABoC if he doesn’t take a stand against TEC’s innovations.
The *trickle* of those leaving, will probably include those from mainly two groups. The first, being those who were educated in the past and as such, are theologically orthodox and therefore, aware of the jarring oxymorons being preached by TEC. The second, being those with young children (TEC’s future) whom they wish to raise as Christians, who will/are taking note of this current unpleasantness and will shake the dust of TEC from their shoes.
If an organization loses BOTH its past and its future at the same time, it will die.
Those who care, are no longer waiting for silly TEC deadlines to arrive in order to make up their minds, for these deadlines are now, fundamentally, unimportant shadows, within clouds, within a mist.
Let’s not forget that the first deadline was 2006. We were told that GC had to settle this and they didn’t, so then it was 9/30. To extend to 2009 is just plain sick.
If you are still attending a TEC parish, then you are helping 815 in their numbers. I know that some of you are there to fight, but you are counted in the rolls as the “faithful remnant.” You need to go, and you need your leaving to be counted. Otherwise, you’re just a part of the propaganda.
As a person in leadership of Christ Church of the Ascension pre departure and a person in leadership of the departing portion of the parish, I can tell you that a majority of the parish would have supported a departure from TEC at an earlier date. Several factors impacted the ultimate outcome. Some felt the departure was taking too long and left ahead of the pack, diminishing the percentage of those seeking separation. Originally the plan was to seek to retain the property, which was acquired and built without help from the diocese. The delay in the decision to depart splintered the clergy, as well as the parish, with one priest leaving last spring. Following the HOB meeting in the spring, it became clear that 815 was not letting anyone out with their property without a fight. In light of the duration and cost of the fight to keep the property in the LA diocese parishes who departed in 2004, it was decided that we would leave without our property rather than engage the parish in a lengthy and costly battle. That decision not only impacted our Rector’s decision to accept an offer in the “safe” diocese of the Rio Grande, it also impacted the decision to stay among some of those w
(Don’t know what happened to the rest of the post above…)
some of those who had built the church, buried loved ones in the memorial garden, or who weren’t leaving if they weren’t going with the Rector. 11 of 14 vestry members, including Jr and Sr wardens, chancellor, clerk of the vestry and approximately 60% of the recent ASA. Some parishioners remain to support the third priest who will be leaving Christ Church of the Ascension the end of December, and those parishioners will join Christ Church Anglican parish at that time. The majority of Christ Church of the Ascension will have departed and the remnant will be struggling to keep the church financially viable, I suspect. Time will tell.
Thanks for the first hand account WPortebello – I wish your new parish a bright future – I know ya’ll must be very excited! One thing missed in most of these discussions is the demographic time bomb awaiting TEC – I am essentially Anglo-Catholic (of the old scotch and soda Episcopalian variety) – but I recognize that the Evangelical wing is the most growth oriented part of the Church (by definition). Its impending en masse departure leaves TEC with its senior citizens, a considerable number of homosexuals, and white cultural liberals – none of these demographics reproduce in numbers sufficient for replacement. Bob from Boone – even if it is a trickle or a stream – its the productive part of the Church – TEC may have more to fear from the grave (as an institution not as a religion)
Trooper, I’m sticking around long enough for my diocese to leave……..in about three months……..and after that, it’s adios, TEC!