Some will cite the 2003 General Convention, which approved the Episcopal Church’s first openly gay bishop, as the turning point, and The Episcopal Church Annual again shows an important decline (see p. 21): we have lost more than 250,000 baptized members (from 2,284,233 to 2,006,343) and 325 parishes and missions (from 7,220 to 6,895). “Episcopal Congregations Overview” records that 89 percent of Episcopal congregations reported conflicts or disagreements in the last five years, and adds: “The ordination of gay priests or bishops was the most frequently mentioned source of conflict” (p. 3).
But the essential elements of decline began in the mid-1970s. In 1970, TEC had an all-time high of 3,475,164 members. Within five years, it had lost nearly half a million, down to 3,039,136 (Episcopal Church Annual, p. 21). In the four decades since then, we bled out more than one-third of our members. Some will blame this drastic period of anemia on divisions over women’s ordination, prayer book revision and even fallout from the civil rights movements of the 1960s, but it is probably not that simple either. A massive loss between 1970 and 1975 occurred before the height of divisions over women’s ordination and prayer book revision….
Our many-faceted attempts to scramble for some method that will recharge, reawaken and revitalize the church are simply not working. What are we to do?…
Die with dignity?
How about a new ‘Decade of Evangelism’? That was so successful last time!!
This is the first time I’ve read article from TLC which tells the truth. Of course, TEC’s leaders could begin the healing process by completely unoing everything they’ve done since the 1970s, but we all know that’ll never happen. The truth is that things have gone too far, and it’s too late for reform.
I hope I’m wrong but I am not sanguine regarding TEC’s prospects. They’ve been on the wrong road ever since the HoB gave Jim Pike a pass and in recent years all they’ve done is double-down on their mistakes. In Christ all is possible but at this point “death with dignity” seems unlikely.
My favourite quote:
[blockquote] Well, if we have been making more room at the table, the exodus from our church suggests that people must be eating at a different restaurant. [/blockquote]
Margaret, that was the money quote for me as well.
I do think that he underestimates the extent to which our problems are cultural. What happened in the 70s? The sexual revolution, Vietnam, Watergate, mass disenchantment with Western institutions, the coming of age of the baby boom generation that hadn’t seen the sacrifice of the generation before. We do not face the same situation that the early Church faced. The Roman and Greek worlds had never heard the Gospel, which was new and earth shattering. Our world has heard the Gospel, or thinks it has, and sees it as old and stale. It is an entirely different dynamic, one that is testing all churches and not just ours. It’s not just churches, either, all civic institutions from the Masons to the local Friends of the Library are finding their membership aging and declining. The younger generations don’t want to join anything more demanding then Facebook. We really are facing a cultural sea change.
Good point Californian. I was confirmed in the 70s at 11 years old. My catechesis was a grand total of four hours on two Saturday afternoons. Nobody seems to have really been taught and when trouble came they did not have the Spiritual tools to fight the culture and the culture swept them away. In the 1970s TEC reaped the fruits of decades of decline in its teaching. Once the culture said,”It’s ok not to go to church,” 500,000 took them up on the offer.
I seem to remember some guy teaching about building a house on sand and something about “great was the sound of its falling.” I wonder who that was?
It is true that 1977-1978 were watershed years. The Affirmation of St Louis in 1977 marked the walking apart of the Continuum Churches in protest at Women’s Ordination, and 1978 marked the first open protest at Lambeth Conference by what would later be known as ‘the Global South’.
But these protests did not spring up overnight. They were reactions to events that had been taking place for more than ten years previously. It would seem logical that in those antecedents to the ‘revolts’ of 1977 and 1978, we will find the reasons for the heavy losses which this article says were experienced by TECUSA during 1970-1975.
A couple of things I can think of:
1. The rot often sets in from the centre. The 1968 Lambeth Conference under ++Ramsey produced a number of resolutions which displayed strong liberalism and relativism, For example:
* Resolution 9 (call for a World Government);
* Resolution 11 (call to “set forward the common unity of mankind” when dealing with other faiths);
* Resolution 19 (“The study of social and political change”, which included “That the Church increasingly call on the skills of full-time professionals in such fields as social work, community organisation, education, recreational activities, and the mass media, and that they be regarded as members of the integral staff of the Church” – this is an extraordinary equation of ‘full time professionals’ with ordained ministers of the church); and
* Resolution 34 (“that the theological arguments as at present presented for and against the ordination of women to the priesthood are inconclusive”).
At the same time, the Lambeth Resolutions that year contain little that exhibits a strong statement of gospel truth.
Leadership is fundamental. Poor leadership like this from the gathering of the world’s Anglican bishops in 1968 could well contribute to an exodus from churches in the Communion during 1970 to 1975.
2. Liberal teaching by Anglican leaders. John Robinson, Bishop of Woolwich published the pernicious ‘Honest to God’ in 1963, and he followed this with half-a dozen more liberal works in the late 60s and early 70s. These were openly tolerated by many Anglican church leaders in western countries, and must surely have made some contribution to a loss of faith in the period 1970-1975.
Seminary education: failure to teach the Bible as Canonical Scripture, and instead the introduction of methods which read the scriptures against their own grain. The transition from Pusey (whatever his limitations) to Gore (in the Catholic context of anglicanism; see Lux Mundi) in terms of the approach to scripture is fateful. We leave to the side the journey from sola scriptura to higher-critical methods justified on that basis, within continental Lutheranism.
PS. See now the readable “The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies” (OUP, 2010) by Michael Legaspi. Not as pentrating as Frei’s Eclipse of Biblical Narrative but also more accessible.
“The far right, caught in the throes of impatient and uncharitable judgment, allows a root of bitterness to take hold, and departs in a dust storm of triumphant rebellion”.
Some of what Levenson+ has to say has merit, but the above is an oversimplification and complete “diss” to all the people I know who left TEC for primarily spiritual and theological reasons. It was basically a crisis of conscience for so many, and the hogwash above is just that.
Dr. Seitz above is saying what I’ve said, but he’s placing it on the academic/seminarian level, where it also belongs. My words have always been more along the vein of, if more Episcopal priests and laymen(and women) would study the actual Scriptures as much as they’ve studied Biblical criticism(so much of it unscholarly garbage, too, for that matter), we wouldn’t be in this mess.
RE: “Some of what Levenson+ has to say has merit, but the above is an oversimplification and complete “diss†to all the people I know who left TEC for primarily spiritual and theological reasons. It was basically a crisis of conscience for so many, and the hogwash above is just that.”
Agreed.
One of the amazing things about so many of the leaders of the Stayers has been their complete denial of the crisis of conscience that Leavers had. I personally think it’s a cover for their own massive failure of leadership. They’re angry that folks left — it’s certainly made their lives more inconvenient to say the least — and they *still* have no realistic solutions for the mess that conservatives in TEC are in. So they have to blame the Leavers for all sorts of sins in leaving like “impatience,” “uncharitable judgment,” “bitterness,” and “rebellion.” I suppose it makes them feel better.
Most of the masses I know who have left TEC left because they did not wish to remain in a sick, corrupt, dysfunctional organization, because they were very concerned about their children being in such an organization which purports to be representative of the Christian faith, and sometimes because their consciences demanded it.
But on a more humorous note, civilized people have to just quietly avert their eyes from the first comment on the article at the Living Church. ; > )
Hmm, preach Jesus and Him Crucified, Resurrected, and Ascended Lord?
Just sayin’.
He talks big: “Liberals must allow conservatives…” Sorry, but they don’t have to do anything. The liberals, armed with their new enhanced Title IV weaponry will be gunning for conservatives all the more. They will not tolerate the “intolerant”. I can hear Sarah saying “Stop it, just stop it” when she hears conservatives saying that liberals need to fight fair and do the right thing by the conservative minority remnant. Expect nothing but a knife in the back.
Levinson makes the mistake of using term “living into the baptismal covenant.” Blech. Susan Russell predictably picks up on this in the comments. The phrase has become the justification of the liberals trashing of the denomination: I am going to sue this Christian group so as to live into my baptismal Covenant. I am going to practice communion of the unbaptized so as to live into my baptismal covenant, I am going to dispense with Christian orthodoxy so as to live into my baptismal covenant,… Whatever the phrase meant at one time, it has become completely bastardized.
“…and they *still* have no realistic solutions for the mess that conservatives in TEC are in”.
I’m just a peon and not part of the hierarchy, but I don’t believe there are any “realistic solutions”.
For some, “living into their Baptismal Covenant” means “carte blanche” for whatever they want to do, as long as they can invoke Jesus’s name once in a while in order to feel good about whatever they’re doing. The “Baptismal Covenant” lingo supercedes all their new interpretations, and thus violations, of Scripture. They can have it.
Bookworm, if by realistic solutions you mean something that will help reform TEC I definitely agree with you. Other than fire pouring out from the heavens to light the soaked offerings, there’s nothing realistic about TEC’s being reformed. It’s not going to happen save by some miraculous bolt from the blue directly from God. In other words, there are no clever means of stealthily reforming TEC.
But people have cried out for actions that can be taken to protect their parishes and/or dioceses . . . and there are realistic solutions for *some* of those.
But mostly, I’ve found that leaders prefer that their people remain ignorant so that they can just continue trying desperately to hold together their own congregations.
That almost never works — but that’s what I’ve found is the “strategy” for many.
RE: “Levinson makes the mistake of using term “living into the baptismal covenant.â€
But you gotta admit — the comment is humorous. ; > ) It’s like a family discussing how to restore sanity and wholeness after the chaos of the actions of the drunk father — and the drunk father enters in and chimes in about the importance of stability, truth, and responsibility.
I think most people [other than, of course, the revisionist activists] recognize the disgrace. Hence — the averting the eyes.
On the other hand, her actions are merely a symptom — not the cause and not the crisis. Just a cog in the wheel and certainly not responsible for the disaster of the family.
“But people have cried out for actions that can be taken to protect their parishes and/or dioceses . . . and there are realistic solutions for *some* of those.”
I think you’ll agree with me again when I say, that depends–on what you’re made of, where you are, and who’s in charge. Sadly, the last one is probably the most important on that score.
In the past, I’ve also compared the TEC-leader “election” system to the military “selection” system–both have their pluses and minuses. But, sadly, both can be subject to “popularity-contest” and blackballing-type behaviors; the latter even when someone would do a great job. I’m not really a fan of the “leader-by-popular-vote” type of thing. In our diocese’s case, we got wonderfully lucky. Others have not. And many times, I believe selection systems produce way more *qualified” leaders.
I fully realize that you are speaking “globally”, and I think you are right about most of what you say. E.g., in our particular parish, there may be some who want to avert their eyes, but no one is “head-in-the-sand”. Playing the long game, in the end, I think the choice is either that you stand for Christ, or you stand for corruption. I know what I stand for, and I know what my rector stands for. Everyone else’s choice remains to be seen; but, I do believe that, within my lifetime, they will all(regardless of where someone like me is at the time) have to decide where they stand. We try, but I can only hope that they are as aware of the consequences of their choices as they can be.
“It’s like a family discussing how to restore sanity and wholeness after the chaos of the actions of the drunk father—and the drunk father enters in and chimes in about the importance of stability, truth, and responsibility”.
What’s even more humorous(and sick, for that matter) is also watching the severe codependent wife chime in and say that everyone is “overreacting”. 🙂 I’ve heard that song before, and in so many different contexts. Time will tell…
One bizarre thing I have not understood. Baptism is preeminently the sacrament of God’s action in Christ for us. That is why we baptize infants! How can a baptismal covenant end up representing a set of agreements we make and then hold up as a special TEC contribution!
And then when it comes time properly to use a term like covenant, as in conciliar forbearance and mutual submission, TEC runs in the other direction and condemns the entire affair.
They confuse “respecting the (inherent) dignity of every person”–properly understood for 3000 years in the Judeo-Christian tradition as stemming from being made in the image of God–with validating all behaviors. This turns the whole moral universe on its head: instead of beginning with God’s revelation, in myriad forms, and working towards right relationship and behavior in response, it begins with what “we want” and works backwards, seeking self-centered permission, dressed up as “revelation”. In its simplest form, this “new” understanding is as old as the serpent whispering, “Did God really say?”…And, this New Spirit, in reality, is as ancient as Canaanite fertility religion, abominations on the heights, and Jeremiah’s railings against “playing the harlot”(physically and spiritually), in the most polite translation. Sadly, for those with ears to hear, it appears not the Church understanding a new thing, but the Enemy and fallen humanity repeating the same “old thing”. All of us from God? We can believe that as long as we choose to intellectually subvert Scripture and Revelation, or discard them altogether.
Along the line, I’d guess, of what Fr. Gabriel likes to say(in paraphrase)–the demons cannot “be holy”, they can only ape holy things. But, maybe as long as they invoke “God” and “Christ” and other such language while doing it, the outer shell looks the same and it all gets a pass from those who believe themselves “compassionate”. I feel differently.
Thank you, Dr. Seitz; you’ve got it–“Covenant”–but only and especially, when it works for “me”. He’d have to weigh in here, but I don’t believe that’s what God had in mind.
On the positive side, the article does point out a lot of inconvenient statistics and facts about the recent trend of TEC. There is no chorus of liberals or centrists trying to deny these. Susan Russell posts on a different issue. So maybe the message about the wages of liberalism is starting to sink in.