An awful lot in this article about the authors “experience” and using that to test the various churches he’s attended. Perhaps a different model might lead one to sift ones “experience” in the light of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.
#1 — Well, let’s be fair. He admits his assertions are anecdotal and that he’s writing from his own experiences. We have to give him a break on that. And, quite honestly, while my parish is not “liberal,” I know what he’s talking about and have seen it here. The Church of Christ youth are fascinated by our liturgy and often come to visit — some of the college-age CC-ers have become regular attendees and I’ve heard more than one ask our priests after the service about the confirmation classes.
Plus, if the hardcore evangelicals are looking for a more liturgical church but still identify as Protestants, then an evangelical or even broad Episcopal church would be a good fit. It makes sense, and it’s probably why the evangelical churches are, indeed, growing. Not because of his bias and twisted “reasoning.”
His “reasoning” makes little sense. No, you would NOT expect a church that moves in the “grey” areas and works hard to accommodate all sorts and lets people know it to decline so quickly and dramatically. The ringleaders of this certainly didn’t expect it — VGR was crowing enthusiastically about how many more people would be attracted to TEC following his consecration. Not.
It’s because every organization has standards of membership and common beliefs and commitments. If it doesn’t, it soon becomes apparent that if everyone is on a different page, gathering together and trying to maintain unity becomes frustrating and pointless. There’s no reason to belong to the organization, let alone fund it. I framed this in secular terms because that’s what TEC has been chasing. And they don’t even get it on the secular level.
Some parishes work because of the leadership and dynamics. I belong to one of those, so I know they exist. But I think that, increasingly, these parishes are going to have to become more “congregational” for survival and lose the Episcopal references because of the inherent baggage that comes with that moniker. Most probably play down the affiliation already.
This, I think, is the issue with discernment in the Episcopal Church these years. We are so starved for growth that we see any form of growth as from God, regardless of where or why it is. This is simply not the case. Not all growth is positive growth. Cancer grows, but that does not make the cancer from God.
#3 — Please tell me that you’re not comparing seekers who don’t agree with you to cancer. I believe that God can use and transform ANY seeker who asks.
And I have a problem with calling anyone a cancer. I’ve lost all of my family members to cancer and it’s not a word to toss about so glibly. It’s got meaning and powerful connotations.
No, I said nothing about seekers or anyone else. I am simply pointing out that in the Episcopal church, we have completely stopped discerning what growth is from God and what growth might not be because we have been watching our average Sunday attendance plummet for decades. We’re so desperate for positive sign of anything that we buy into whatever new thing that might be out there, even if what is being created in a parish is, in fact, a personality cult or something else. We simply assume all growth is good and of the Spirit, and that is not true in the Church or anywhere else.
I expect the Episcopal Church will see modest positive growth over thxt few years. Part of the apparent growth will be the result of the 2011 Christmas on Sunday effect on Average Sunday Attendance, but most of the conservatives who are going to leave have left and the increased attendance of hard economic times may begin to show.
RE: “but most of the conservatives who are going to leave have left . . . ”
Boy. As much as I respect you, I very much disagree. People are going to leave over the actions of General Convention *this year* in my diocese. And every single three years there will be a fresh wave out.
Further, those conservatives who remain are *very much* engaging in “distancing and detachment” — which means less attendance, even at conservative parishes.
Believe me — I have first hand experience of this at my own parish!
#6. “…who are going to [leave] have [already] left”. Aside from the grammatical problem raised by the the two conflicting tenses presented in this sentence (i.e., presenting something that is yet to happen as something that’s happened in fact, the comment appears to be obviously based on little more than wishful thinking. To start with with the period preceding the consecration of Bishop Robinson, let’s say there were 700,000 individuals who would identify themselves as conservative Episcopalians and either an active member of a TEC parish or an individual who regularly attended services in a TEC parish (and that number is a reasonable one in my opinion). Let’s also say that as many as 400,000 of these have now “left” or stopped attending or supporting a TEC parish (actually a large number of “already left” individuals, in my opinion). That would ll leave as many as 300,000 of the above individuals who are now a potential loss to TEC as a result of recent controversial TEC actions/decisions. Further, If only 60 percent of these 300,000 leave because of recent TEC actions/decisions (and that’s not an unreasonable number in my opinion), I doubt if the loss of another 180,000 members/regular attendees would be considered as an insignificant numerical loss by TEC regardless of the fact that the number would be spread around various dioceses.
#5 — But this isn’t about desperately searching for growth. No one here is doing that. This is an article about one parish that the author freely admits is anecdotal. That’s why I felt that your “cancer” metaphor was both unnecessary and repugnant.
Moreover, the reasserter/evangelical/orthodox parishes and dioceses often do show growth. It’s not surprising, then, that a reappraiser would write that his parish has grown, too. That doesn’t mean there’s any “trend” or search for growth because of that one assertion, no matter how anemic it might be.
No. 9, I am sorry you are offended, but my analogy stands. This article is part of the blog wars going on in various quarters about the overall health, or lack thereof, of the Episcopal church in light of General Convention’s decisions, membership decline, and whether or not the Episcopal church (and the liberal mainline churches in general) is dying or not. I stand by my analogy that this whole argument being waged online is misguided because we have no discernment about what positive Church growth looks like or should look like. We are like a ship without a rudder listing in the dark. Not all growth is good, but how would we know because we are so myopic on the issue of what is good and healthy for the church long term.
No. 6 and 7. I can only speak from experience these last two weeks and say that I’ve dealt with no less that 16 people I know either from my current congregation or people I have had some pastoral relationship with in the past, who have all told me that they either are leaving or are discerning whether they will leave because of this year’s General Convention decisions.
Not all of this has to do with Same Sex blessings. Some are leaving because they feel the Episcopal church has been taken over by political extremists (just look at all the sheerly political resolutions that were passed.) Some over the transsexual clergy thing. Yes, some over the Same Sex blessing thing and dubious non canonical passage.
On the flip side, at least one or two in my parish have told me they might leave precisely because I have made it clear that I won’t do a same sex blessing (a policy I have been very clear on for years), regardless of whatever General Convention and/or my bishop says or does about the matter. I am usually pretty tight lipped about the whole sexuality issue(s), at least from the pulpit, just to try to keep peace in the parish, but the fact of the matter is that I still think same sex unions are not in God’s plan and blessing them is a theological place I simply cannot go. People get offended that I might have ideas that contraindicate their white bread, liberal ideology. Why this is a new revelation to some members in my parish, I have no idea. They must not have been listening to any of my sermons for last 3 years.
And, frankly, I’ve come to the point where I don’t care. If people are offended by that, then they can just leave. I am tired of being in a place as a priest where I feel like I have to play my cards close to my vest just to placate people with whom I disagree. I won’t do it any more, and maybe I should have spoken out louder on these issues in the past.
The “big tent” doctrine of the Episcopal church has failed. It is time to call a spade a spade and be honest about the fact that all these “God is doing a new thing” revisions have driven off, and continue to drive off, members right and left (pun intended). The flood gates to membership did not open when we allowed Gene Robinson bishop, and they won’t now. In fact, just the opposite.
In fact, I just had a conversation with a friend of mine who is pretty liberal on most of these issues, and she told me she’s leaving. I was somewhat astounded by that because on all these issues, her side has basically won the day. I asked her why, and she said (and I quote directly with her permission), “I’m just tired…tired of fighting, tired of talking about sex all the time. At this point, I would just as soon be in a church that takes a hard line with which I disagree as long as they don’t harp on it continuously if it means I can come to church and worship in peace and not have to constantly fight about this stuff over and over.”
[blockquote] “Though there is solid evidence that church attendance is decreasing (dying is, of course, just sensationalizing the matter), he provides no proof that the church is not attracting a younger, more open minded demographic. It is conceivable that while attendance is decreasing, young, open-minded people are becoming attracted to the church. Again, I know it’s just anecdotal — you can bet I’ll be doing a bit of research on this — but my experience works against Douthat’s claim.” [/blockquote]
I thought the membership statistics demonstrated a steady ageing of TEC’s membership over the last decade or so? I’m happy to be corrected.
But I agree that is just a trend and doesn’t mean the writer’s personal experience can’t be different – judging by his opinions, the type of church he likes would probably also be frequented by other young people of a certain social and philosophical thought. But that doesn’t mean that his diocese as a whole must be doing well. Does anyone know the stats for his diocese?
An awful lot in this article about the authors “experience” and using that to test the various churches he’s attended. Perhaps a different model might lead one to sift ones “experience” in the light of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.
#1 — Well, let’s be fair. He admits his assertions are anecdotal and that he’s writing from his own experiences. We have to give him a break on that. And, quite honestly, while my parish is not “liberal,” I know what he’s talking about and have seen it here. The Church of Christ youth are fascinated by our liturgy and often come to visit — some of the college-age CC-ers have become regular attendees and I’ve heard more than one ask our priests after the service about the confirmation classes.
Plus, if the hardcore evangelicals are looking for a more liturgical church but still identify as Protestants, then an evangelical or even broad Episcopal church would be a good fit. It makes sense, and it’s probably why the evangelical churches are, indeed, growing. Not because of his bias and twisted “reasoning.”
His “reasoning” makes little sense. No, you would NOT expect a church that moves in the “grey” areas and works hard to accommodate all sorts and lets people know it to decline so quickly and dramatically. The ringleaders of this certainly didn’t expect it — VGR was crowing enthusiastically about how many more people would be attracted to TEC following his consecration. Not.
It’s because every organization has standards of membership and common beliefs and commitments. If it doesn’t, it soon becomes apparent that if everyone is on a different page, gathering together and trying to maintain unity becomes frustrating and pointless. There’s no reason to belong to the organization, let alone fund it. I framed this in secular terms because that’s what TEC has been chasing. And they don’t even get it on the secular level.
Some parishes work because of the leadership and dynamics. I belong to one of those, so I know they exist. But I think that, increasingly, these parishes are going to have to become more “congregational” for survival and lose the Episcopal references because of the inherent baggage that comes with that moniker. Most probably play down the affiliation already.
This, I think, is the issue with discernment in the Episcopal Church these years. We are so starved for growth that we see any form of growth as from God, regardless of where or why it is. This is simply not the case. Not all growth is positive growth. Cancer grows, but that does not make the cancer from God.
#3 — Please tell me that you’re not comparing seekers who don’t agree with you to cancer. I believe that God can use and transform ANY seeker who asks.
And I have a problem with calling anyone a cancer. I’ve lost all of my family members to cancer and it’s not a word to toss about so glibly. It’s got meaning and powerful connotations.
No. 4,
No, I said nothing about seekers or anyone else. I am simply pointing out that in the Episcopal church, we have completely stopped discerning what growth is from God and what growth might not be because we have been watching our average Sunday attendance plummet for decades. We’re so desperate for positive sign of anything that we buy into whatever new thing that might be out there, even if what is being created in a parish is, in fact, a personality cult or something else. We simply assume all growth is good and of the Spirit, and that is not true in the Church or anywhere else.
I expect the Episcopal Church will see modest positive growth over thxt few years. Part of the apparent growth will be the result of the 2011 Christmas on Sunday effect on Average Sunday Attendance, but most of the conservatives who are going to leave have left and the increased attendance of hard economic times may begin to show.
RE: “but most of the conservatives who are going to leave have left . . . ”
Boy. As much as I respect you, I very much disagree. People are going to leave over the actions of General Convention *this year* in my diocese. And every single three years there will be a fresh wave out.
Further, those conservatives who remain are *very much* engaging in “distancing and detachment” — which means less attendance, even at conservative parishes.
Believe me — I have first hand experience of this at my own parish!
#6. “…who are going to [leave] have [already] left”. Aside from the grammatical problem raised by the the two conflicting tenses presented in this sentence (i.e., presenting something that is yet to happen as something that’s happened in fact, the comment appears to be obviously based on little more than wishful thinking. To start with with the period preceding the consecration of Bishop Robinson, let’s say there were 700,000 individuals who would identify themselves as conservative Episcopalians and either an active member of a TEC parish or an individual who regularly attended services in a TEC parish (and that number is a reasonable one in my opinion). Let’s also say that as many as 400,000 of these have now “left” or stopped attending or supporting a TEC parish (actually a large number of “already left” individuals, in my opinion). That would ll leave as many as 300,000 of the above individuals who are now a potential loss to TEC as a result of recent controversial TEC actions/decisions. Further, If only 60 percent of these 300,000 leave because of recent TEC actions/decisions (and that’s not an unreasonable number in my opinion), I doubt if the loss of another 180,000 members/regular attendees would be considered as an insignificant numerical loss by TEC regardless of the fact that the number would be spread around various dioceses.
#5 — But this isn’t about desperately searching for growth. No one here is doing that. This is an article about one parish that the author freely admits is anecdotal. That’s why I felt that your “cancer” metaphor was both unnecessary and repugnant.
Moreover, the reasserter/evangelical/orthodox parishes and dioceses often do show growth. It’s not surprising, then, that a reappraiser would write that his parish has grown, too. That doesn’t mean there’s any “trend” or search for growth because of that one assertion, no matter how anemic it might be.
No. 9, I am sorry you are offended, but my analogy stands. This article is part of the blog wars going on in various quarters about the overall health, or lack thereof, of the Episcopal church in light of General Convention’s decisions, membership decline, and whether or not the Episcopal church (and the liberal mainline churches in general) is dying or not. I stand by my analogy that this whole argument being waged online is misguided because we have no discernment about what positive Church growth looks like or should look like. We are like a ship without a rudder listing in the dark. Not all growth is good, but how would we know because we are so myopic on the issue of what is good and healthy for the church long term.
No. 6 and 7. I can only speak from experience these last two weeks and say that I’ve dealt with no less that 16 people I know either from my current congregation or people I have had some pastoral relationship with in the past, who have all told me that they either are leaving or are discerning whether they will leave because of this year’s General Convention decisions.
Not all of this has to do with Same Sex blessings. Some are leaving because they feel the Episcopal church has been taken over by political extremists (just look at all the sheerly political resolutions that were passed.) Some over the transsexual clergy thing. Yes, some over the Same Sex blessing thing and dubious non canonical passage.
On the flip side, at least one or two in my parish have told me they might leave precisely because I have made it clear that I won’t do a same sex blessing (a policy I have been very clear on for years), regardless of whatever General Convention and/or my bishop says or does about the matter. I am usually pretty tight lipped about the whole sexuality issue(s), at least from the pulpit, just to try to keep peace in the parish, but the fact of the matter is that I still think same sex unions are not in God’s plan and blessing them is a theological place I simply cannot go. People get offended that I might have ideas that contraindicate their white bread, liberal ideology. Why this is a new revelation to some members in my parish, I have no idea. They must not have been listening to any of my sermons for last 3 years.
And, frankly, I’ve come to the point where I don’t care. If people are offended by that, then they can just leave. I am tired of being in a place as a priest where I feel like I have to play my cards close to my vest just to placate people with whom I disagree. I won’t do it any more, and maybe I should have spoken out louder on these issues in the past.
The “big tent” doctrine of the Episcopal church has failed. It is time to call a spade a spade and be honest about the fact that all these “God is doing a new thing” revisions have driven off, and continue to drive off, members right and left (pun intended). The flood gates to membership did not open when we allowed Gene Robinson bishop, and they won’t now. In fact, just the opposite.
In fact, I just had a conversation with a friend of mine who is pretty liberal on most of these issues, and she told me she’s leaving. I was somewhat astounded by that because on all these issues, her side has basically won the day. I asked her why, and she said (and I quote directly with her permission), “I’m just tired…tired of fighting, tired of talking about sex all the time. At this point, I would just as soon be in a church that takes a hard line with which I disagree as long as they don’t harp on it continuously if it means I can come to church and worship in peace and not have to constantly fight about this stuff over and over.”
I think that quote says it all.
I suspect that is why institutions by nature are conservative.
[blockquote] “Though there is solid evidence that church attendance is decreasing (dying is, of course, just sensationalizing the matter), he provides no proof that the church is not attracting a younger, more open minded demographic. It is conceivable that while attendance is decreasing, young, open-minded people are becoming attracted to the church. Again, I know it’s just anecdotal — you can bet I’ll be doing a bit of research on this — but my experience works against Douthat’s claim.” [/blockquote]
I thought the membership statistics demonstrated a steady ageing of TEC’s membership over the last decade or so? I’m happy to be corrected.
But I agree that is just a trend and doesn’t mean the writer’s personal experience can’t be different – judging by his opinions, the type of church he likes would probably also be frequented by other young people of a certain social and philosophical thought. But that doesn’t mean that his diocese as a whole must be doing well. Does anyone know the stats for his diocese?