Presiding Bishop: ECUSA began decline before gay bishop
flockwoodTop-notch Episcopal Church statistician Kirk Hadaway gave a presentation to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and other church leaders — and the numbers don’t look good.
After the ordination of openly gay bishop Gene Robinson in 2003, the Episcopal Church lost roughlyone-tenth of its members. Roughly One-seventh of its weekly churchgoers stopped attending.
Is there a big correlation between Robinson’s ordination and the plummeting membership and attendance figures? The presiding bishop doesn’t seem to think so, if this Episcopal News Service article is any indication.
“Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said after Hadaway’s report that she was struck that the most recent trend of declining membership began in 2000 and 2001, ‘long before the actions of General Convention 2003, which is often the spin that is out there.’ That meeting of convention consented to the ordination and consecration of New Hampshire Bishop Gene Robinson as the first openly gay and partnered bishop in the Anglican Communion. That decision caused intense debate across the church and the fracturing of some congregations and dioceses.”
But here’s what the church’s own statistics show:
Membership decline from 1998 through 2002 = 1%
Membership decline from 1998 through 2008 = 12%
The pattern is even more striking for church attendance.
Church attendance from 1998 through 2002 actually increased by 0.5% But average Sunday attendance between 1998 and 2008 decreased 16 percent.
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:05 pm
I would think you would need to examine the same information from other faiths and then try to determine if this was an isolated decline or an overall decline in religious service attendance. To show it like this would be an implication with an overtone of confluting (a nice Latin word) statistics.
February 23rd, 2010 at 11:23 am
You can look at my analysis of the stats here: http://tinyurl.com/yapacut .
Frank is absolutely correct. The Episcopal denomination was basically holding its own (membership increases or declines less than 0.5%), in contrast to other liberal mainstream denominations, through 2002. My theory is that this is due to an influx of disaffected Roman Catholics in the late 90’s and early aught’s. Regardless, in 2003, the membership numbers went from “holding its own” to declines in the 1.5-2.0% per year declines. Also, one can see that in 2006, the numbers took a further turn southwards. (Schori, the litigator, was elected in 2006.)
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Why doesn’t she just own up to the fact that the ordination was unpopular? “Yeah, it was unpopular, but we were doing the right thing.” Wouldn’t that be the response of someone who stood by her own actions?
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:14 pm
10% membership and 14% Sunday attendance decline after ordination of openly gay bishop Gene Robinson in 2003 is definitely a significant blow to effectiveness of Church management. 10% members have rejected the new doctrine and walked out the Church and another 14% got hurt spiritually and stop coming to Sunday service but did not cancel membership yet. In other word total souls affected by this ordination is 24% (10%+14%) which is alarming for a declining Church and can expect accelerated declining in near future if not control now. I hope management would pay attention to their sheep’s spirituality by keeping faith on biblical teaching, rather than history and news making events.
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:07 pm
“I’d rather be right than President.”
–Henry Clay
I’d rather be right, and be doing what God wants us to do, than please the public. If the grass eaters are running in the other direction, I figure we’re probably on the right track.
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:36 pm
I’ve looked at several pages of statistics and the only absolute conclusion I can come to, there all different.
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:37 pm
They are all different, sorry about the Frank!
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:38 pm
I give up!
February 23rd, 2010 at 7:40 pm
“confluting (a nice Latin word)” -perplexed
You had to go there, didn’t you, perp? Confluting is not a nice Latin word, because it’s not a word at all. Perhaps you meant conflating, which is a nice word of Latin origin. Conflating is derived from the nice Latin word, conflare, which means “to blow (or melt) together.” Spell check, man, or dictionary.com. Both are working in tandem to make impeccable spelling and proper diction a relic of the past.
On another note, about these church statistics, [From German Statistik, political science, from New Latin statisticus, of state affairs, from Italian statista, person skilled in statecraft, from stato, state, from Old Italian, from Latin status, position, form of government; see stā- in Indo-European roots.], the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life has put out their numbers. My fellow atheists are holding strong at 1.6%! Way to go, team! I knew we could do it!
February 24th, 2010 at 7:00 am
Well Cheese, it stating out as confluting, ended up as conflating but was supposed to be confuting. Oh well, half blind, can’t spell and fingers that take up three keys at a time, what’s a man supposed to do?
February 24th, 2010 at 11:15 am
Caleb, if you don’t care about the public, a few questions for you, please.
First, why do you support the ill-conceived liturgical changes of the last fifty years
(Answer: to please the public.)
Second, why do you support women’s ordination?
(Answer: to please the public.)
Finally, why are you so hip to the jive of contemporary church music?
(Answer: to please the public.)
Obviously, you would rather be president than right. And you are neither, in fact.
Down with the Diocese of Newark, and all of its diabolical works, and all of its empty promises.
February 24th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Well, Dr. Newark, as is always the case with you, your logic works only if I accept your answers to the questions you supposedly ask me.
Let’s let ME answer the questions, and then we’ll see what you think:
>>>>First, why do you support the ill-conceived liturgical changes of the last fifty years
(Answer: to please the public.)<<<<<<>>>>>>Second, why do you support women’s ordination?
(Answer: to please the public.)<<<<<<>>>>>Finally, why are you so hip to the jive of contemporary church music?
(Answer: to please the public.)<<<<<<<<<<
Dr. Newark, are you truly stark raving mad? When did I ever ever ever in my life say I liked contemporary church music? If you look at every post on this entire blog that refers to contemporary music, you'll find that either I say that I've never heard of the artist/song/worship music involved, or I sniff and say that I don't require worship leaders, worship music, or people jumping up and down to worship. I can assure you that contemporary music of any form has never sullied the church services at my parish, though they may play some of it at youth meetings and the like.
One thing is certain, Dr. Newark, and that is that if I cared ONE WHIT about what the public thinks about religion, one denomination I would steer clear of would be the Episcopal Church, which isn't on anyone's short list of organizations beloved by the public. Those who don't think of us as inbred old money elitists wearing tweed at the spring meet at Keeneland and Madras plaid in the fall think of us as gay-loving family-hating fetus-killing heretics who are out to ruin the last bastion of orthodox protestantism left in the world. Either way, Dr. Newark, I don't know of much reason to think that being an Episcopalian at all pleases the public.
All I can say, Dr. Newark, is that, right or wrong, I go by what I think is right, based on my feeble understanding of church doctrine, history, and the Bible, and if I'm wrong, so be it, but one thing is certain: If I'm wrong, I'm wrong all by myself. I'm not saying this stuff to please anybody, and most of what I say doesn't please anybody.
What I don't do, Dr. Newark, is grind my private axes in public. The subject of this post had nothing to do with the Diocese of Newark, and yet you include your standard attack on it at the end of your post. I don't know what happened between you and the Diocese of Newark, and it's none of my business. But whatever it was, I had nothing to do with it, nor did anyone else on this blog. If you have a grievance against the Diocese of Newark, that's between you and it, and I have no knowledge sufficient to form an opinion concerning it. If you're just lashing out, you're lashing out at the wrong guy.
February 24th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Well, Dr. Newark, technology has somehow conspired to deny you the benefit of my answers to your first two questions, which I originally included in that last post.
Let’s try that again:
>>>>First, why do you support the ill-conceived liturgical changes of the last fifty years
(Answer: to please the public.)
Nope. I don’t necessarily support these changes, but I do accept them. I liked the old prayer book better, but have grown used to the new one. Unlike, say those in the Old Prayer Book Society, or at St. Hubert’s church in Lexington, I don’t make a big deal of it. The powers that be, not me, determine the prayer book.
<<<<<>>>>>Second, why do you support women’s ordination?
(Answer: to please the public.)<<<<<>>>>Finally, why are you so hip to the jive of contemporary church music?
(Answer: to please the public.)<<<<<<<<<<
My answer to that one came through.
February 24th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Okay, last chance:
>>>>>>Second, why do you support women’s ordination?
(Answer: to please the public.)<<<<<<
No again. I support the ordination of women for the same reason I support the ordination of gays and lesbians: Because it's right. Back in the '70s, when the ordination of women was a big deal, we had two bishops in succession in Lexington, Bishops Moody and Hosea, who steadfastly refused to ordain women. I participated in the first ordination of a woman priest in Lexington, and I assure you, that pleased no one in the public.
February 24th, 2010 at 10:48 pm
“If the grass eaters are running in the other direction, I figure we’re probably on the right track.”
Caleb, Your statement is not always right. To some extend it is true, for example when Christ was on trial and later crucified no body was at His side except some women who cried from distance. But later Christ was glorified thru resurrection by God. Problem is Episcopal Church gradually drifting away from the original biblical teaching. Not only they disregarded commandments of holy and equal respect for man and women with distinct tasks, based on their natural physical and spiritual strength, they even had gone further by putting doubt on God’s profound love for humanity for which He gave His only begotten Son for our salvation and eternal life. “Grass eater” (sheep) walk out when they do not hear their master’s (Jesus) voice from the Church He built and find no spiritual food. During this lent, let us hear voice of our Master from the Bible. Where else can we go to hear the voice of our Master other than the Holy Bible?
February 25th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Julian, buddy, I realize that you think that your brand of pietistic evangelical drivel is the answer to every question, but has it ever, even remotely, even for a moment, occurred to you that we progressives might actually be right?
Has it ever occurred to you that Jesus might actually want us to include everyone in his church, and that your brand of divisiveness is keeping people from God? I mean, I know it’s easier to spout a bunch of canned drivel than it is to think, but try thinking just for a minute to see if you like it.
February 27th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
Cable, I think myself as a progressive Christian, with limitation set aside by God, like individual freedom within constitutional limit. God invites every individual but with certain condition; see for yourself “The Parable of the Wedding Banquet” Matthew 22, 1-14. The summary of the parable is 14″For many are invited, but few are chosen.” Please think about this parable and tell us why people, though invited but thrown into the darkness, for weeping and gnashing of teeth, because of their wedding dress? This parable is the answer to your question, Christ though invites every body but few are chose as per standard set in the Bible.
February 27th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
The problem, Julian, with saying that a limitation, or anything else, is set by God is that all we have is what people have written about God. For example, you quote a parable from the Bible, and ask my reaction to it. That is not from God, it’s from the Bible.
And, there are two versions of the story. You quote Matthew 22, but the story is also told in Luke 14, where it is significantly different; for example, in Luke, there is no incident of an improperly clad guest being thrown into the darkness. I suspect that the difference comes from the fact that the gospel of Matthew tends to go out of its way to promote a church, as opposed to the fluid movement that comes through in the earlier Gospel of Mark.
So, what I take from this is that the story was part of the so-called “Q” source, or the synoptic sayings source, and was modified from its original in either Matthew or Luke or both. Given the pattern of the modification of the “Q” Source in Matthew, I suspect this reading of the parable was inserted to strengthen the idea, which has caused so much trouble, that one has to tow the line and follow all rules set by a ruling authority. After all, this appears in the same chapter (in Matthew) as Jesus’ famous entreaty to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. This is hardly a progressive or revolutionary document, and I suspect, one written well after the church began to be both institutionalized and the state church of the Roman Empire.
You’re right, Julian, that this parable is the answer to my question, because it shows, in comparison with its brother parable in Luke, that the Bible is a political document written to further particular points of view, and this is one of those views. If you’re basing an idea that it’s okay for US to exclude people from the church based on this parable, I think you’re building your house on the sand, to quote another parable.
February 28th, 2010 at 10:46 pm
“That is not from God, it’s from the Bible.”-Caleb
In other word Caleb, as per you The Bible is not word of God, though you say in every Sunday service as word of God. I know, you are a scholar not only on corporate law but also on Christian theology with academic degree and have no difficulties understanding “The Parable of the Wedding Banquet” found in Matthew 22, 1-14 as well as Luke 14: 15-23 and its same morale “many are invited but few are chosen”. You also know as an experienced Episcopalian/Anglican the wedding dress means state of the mind set required for Holy God’s kingdom as it requires appropriate dress for a wedding banquette in our culture today. God’s kingdom is not an event of sport like “dress as you like”, that any mind sets are welcome to fill up room in heaven. I believe, you are cheating yourself denying roll of Holy Spirit helping in composing ministerial accounts of Christ and other biblical books through different authors. I could agree with you in disagree with interpretation of spiritual dress code but not with the roll of Holy Spirit as a Christian. With this denial you are ultimately denying Holy Trinity. Are you going to do that as an Episcopalian?
March 1st, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Julian, I simply can’t believe that the Bible is the true and authentic word of God, and if you do, it’s because you don’t understand its history, how it was written, and how it’s been changed over the years. If that makes me an apostate, so be it, but I’m in good company. I don’t think my beliefs are dissimilar to those of most Episcopalians, and I know they aren’t dissimilar to that of most biblical scholars. The problem, Julian, is that you simply haven’t studies the fruits of modern biblical scholarship. You might want to look into that.
March 4th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Kiekegaard on modern biblical scholarship. Found in Provocations:
“The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world? Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament.”
March 5th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Christopher, that type of twaddle, which assumes, for no good reason, that the Bible is the be all and end all of theology, is part of the problem, not part of the solution. It assumes that the Bible lays out a superior moral code, when in fact the Bible supports slavery, polygamy, and war against one’s neighbors. The scholarship I refer to, at least, is scholarship that attempts to explain the origins of the various books of the Bible and what they were intended to mean. Anyone who finds this scary perhaps should not look too deeply at church history.
March 5th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Kierkegaard has a good point, that our human frailties and prejudices lead us to disregard many of the simple lessons of the Bible. (How else can one justify the so-called “gospel of prosperity” or Christian militarism?) But this excerpt from the great Dane is a dog. It’s either literary exaggeration or something taken out of context.
There is so much in the Bible that is NOT clear and NOT consistent. Our modern world poses some situations and problems that are not directly addressed by scripture. What then? Anyone who wants to eliminate true scholarship ought to suggest a real alternative. The same challenge goes to anyone who hides behind the skirts of another’s words.