Loading ...ECUSA gets new membership, attendance figures
flockwoodThe Executive Council of the Episcopal Church, meeting in Memphis this week, is slated to receive the 2008 attendance and membership figures for the denomination.
The Episcopal Church, which was growing slightly in the 1990s, has seen sharp drops in both categories since the election of openly-gay bishop Gene Robinson in 2003.
Since then, attendance and membership has dropped each year. Within days we’ll know whether the losses are shrinking or accelerating. The figures will likely be posted on the church’s Web site by sometime next week.
October 7th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
It is time for Episcopal Church for self analysis. Too much liberal thinking put the Church in no where in people’s hearts. The Church is trying to be in middle of the road in between God and His Kingdom and independent people and its secular mind.
October 7th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
So the ECUSA is being extremely liberal by following the middle of the road? That’s an observation worthy of Yogi Berra, or perhaps Barry Goldwater.
Maybe the truth is that they are losing membership because of their focus on being popular.
October 7th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Since when should a church be in the middle of the road, unless of course its following a buisness model!!
October 7th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Instead of following business model to satisfy customers, Church should follow our savior’s (Christ) extreme model, to satisfy God the father only, despite losing popular support in compromising Church with world demands, such as sexual revolution, acknowledging existence of different gods (e.g. Buddhist Bishop, Christian-Muslim priest, celebrating mass with Hindu etc.), in the name of world peace, and also feeling sorry for spreading good news (Gospel) to non-believer for political reasons. Christ came to give peace to the world, not to take peace from the world, by asking people to be His disciple.
October 8th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Julian, if the Episcopal Church was indeed only interested in growth, in following a business model, it would do exactly what you suggest. Clearly, evangelical ideas, of the type you espouse, are far more popular today than the more traditional beliefs espoused by the Episcopal Church. Frank suggests that the reason for the church’s decline in membership is its backing away from evangelical ideas. If this is true, then the church is suffering for trying to advance Christ’s love in the world without prejudice and bigotry.
By deciding to follow the dictates of what we believe that God actually wants — that is, that we love all people and try to bring unity, rather than division, to God’s people — the church has taken a stand for righteousness that puts it at odds with today’s sadduccees and pharisees: the evangelicals.
Julian, I know that it’s easy to hold on to old prejudices against gays and lesbians, but just as we have abandoned racial prejudices of the past, so should we also abandon our prejudice against these people as well. And before you start quoting scripture, bear in mind that those who advocated slavery and racial segregation also backed up those beliefs with scripture. Sometimes I think people quote scripture to make them feel good about their own homophobic beliefs today, just as people quoted scripture fifty years ago to make themselves feel good about being racists.
Julian, we need to rise above the prejudices of the past and move forward together as God’s people — not create artificial divisions.
October 8th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Caleb, I agree with your central point of Christianity, inclusion of everyone under umbrella of God’s love which King David described as wide as from East to the West of the universe, i.e. infinity. I believe God loves sinners, including homosexual, transgender etc., but not the sin, therefore inclusion in the church membership for those who believe in Jesus and the Bible is evangelical. What I do not agree with you is that, by transforming sin (homosexuality) into virtue by simple majority vote in general convention by downgrading Biblical teaching with mere medical science reports, testimony of un-repented priests and bishops and some influence of rich and famous.
The Bible is the only book tested by ages and proved to be authentic about God’s love and messages towards mankind. Any book which contradicts with the teaching of the Bible is considered to be manipulated by human wisdom not from God. Anglican’s Book of Common prayers is consistent with the Biblical teaching, until today.
I also do not agree with you downgrading Bible blaming encouraging slavery system. Please be noted that Bible advised both master and slave to behave humanly, alerting everybody that God is the master of all and we are His slave. Do you think those masters who were kind to their salves would not get salvation from God?
In olden time master slave relationship was considered as input of factor of productions in agriculture labor opposite to modern labor management. Christ’s advice for daily living is to give what belong to the world and give what belongs to God. Economic revolution and blessing of born free nature of humanity crushed the shackle of slavery system. We can not crush shackle of sins by simple majority vote.
October 8th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Well said Julian. We need to be careful about making moral equations (slavery+homosexuality, etc.), though it is fun and makes the arguments simpler. It is like someone calling up everything I’ve done wrong in the past, to make the point that I might be wrong in the present instance. Maybe a pattern can be perceived, but each situation must ultimately stand on it own merits.
Any church has the freedom to appoint or declare anything they want. People can always “vote with their feet” and leave if they don’t like it. Those who are more “enlightened” can then be free of the backward Neanderthals in their midst and carry on to a more exalted sphere.
Fact is, people have every right to believe homosexuality is morally wrong. They can claim it is a perversion of nature and corrupt and deprived. Others have every right to believe it is morally superior to be accepting of all forms of relationships. Calling each other names and labeling each other “Pharisees” is exactly what Satan (if you believe in him) wants. Nothing is more damning than the arrogance of thinking we know better than everyone else.
I believe homosexuality is wrong on some level, therefore I choose not to be an Episcopalian. I don’t believe gays should be drawn and quartered, therefore I’m not a Southern Baptist. Big deal! I try not to be judgmental of either side, even though I think only Mormons are going to heaven and the rest of you heathen sinners are doomed to burn in the everlasting torment of hell! Oh, did I type that out loud? Oops! Ummm… Well, carry on, men. Carry on.
October 9th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
It’s idiotic to say that those who advocate opening God’s church to all of God’s children, gay and straight alike, are doing it merely for fun. I doubt that the ECUSA leadership and the progressive branch are enjoying the controversy and the pain. And surely they knew this would happen. There is a much easier explanation for their actions, that they truly and sincerely understand that this is the true will of the living God. Period.
There are many on the religious right who hold beliefs that I consider ill-informed and hostile to the Good News. I may strenuously disagree with many of these people, but also would hesitate before accusing them of creating mischief for merriment. That would be childish and petty. John, you don’t have respect their theology but it is mean-spirited to trivialize it as you did.
October 16th, 2009 at 8:36 am
Jose, I’m just responding in kind to Caleb’s condescending comment to the effect that the religious right is less than authentic and hypocritical. Didn’t mean to be offensive, just showing the other point of view in an absurd way to make the point. I think we need to laugh at ourselves (and even our prejudices) sometimes, especially when there are equally valid arguments in conflict with each other. Humor can bring us off our high horses and make it easier to agree to disagree. I get a laugh out of political cartoons I don’t really agree with all the time. But then, some are offensive too. It’s tricky. I apologize. I don’t mean to trivialize a serious issue.
October 16th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
John and Julian, perhaps I haven’t made my point clear. The Bible clearly allows for slavery. If you don’t believe me, as Casey Stengel used to say, you could look it up. This was recognized for hundreds of years before we finally made slavery illegal. The Bible also condones polygamy, but condemns the charging of interest for money loaned, and divorce for reasons other than adultery.
Yet today divorce is a matter of right, slavery is illegal, and the charging of interest on loans is not only legal but widely practiced. That tells me two things: First, the Bible cannot be our only guide to morality, both because of what it says and what it doesn’t say. Second, our society and our churches do not look to the Bible as their sole moral guide.
So, if we’re not using the Bible as our moral guide, what are we using? Well, conservative theologians, who as John says are less than authentic and hypocritical, claim to use the Bible, but then modify it to fit their own beliefs. At least we Anglicans are intellectually honest enough to say that we simply don’t accept all of the teachings of the Bible at face value. Perhaps if conservatives would simply make the same admission, we might have more to talk about.
October 16th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Good point Caleb. That’s why we Mormons accept more than just the Bible, like continuing revelation, the Book of Mormon and such. The Bible is extremely flawed, incomplete and contradicts itself in many places. Those extreme right-wing nuts who go to “Bible Church” are not being rational, and I would dismiss their arguments out of hand. What I thought you were talking about was the more mainstream denominations that revere the Bible but don’t take everything literal in it. These people have every rational right to believe that homosexuality is wrong. They don’t want to infringe on other’s right to practice it, necessarily, but they have a good argument for not allowing it in their church. To give you an example: Say a married couple agrees with each other that adultery is okay between them (say they have an “open marriage”). Would a church be within its rights to say they are still committing adultery, even if both parties agree to it? I think yes. Some churches may say its okay, others think it is still fundementally wrong and therefore would exclude them or at least limit their influence.
The Episcopalians have every right to be inclusive if they want, but we shouldn’t mock honest religious people who feel differently–even if they use the Bible, flawed that it is, to back them up. To me, quoting scripture is really the lazy way out. Scriptures are just a dumb tool, like a hammer, it all depends on how we use it–to hit the nail or hit our thumb. If we’re honest and living a moral life to the best of our abilities, we will know what is right. Sometimes our “right” does not jive with other people’s, but it may be right for us and we need to have faith (not hate) that all will be reconciled eventually. We need to work for this in love and not belittling the genuine ignorance of others.
October 16th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Setting a strict moral standard for your church is fine, and you can back it up with scripture, revelation, or other. United Methodists refer to the Wesley Quadrilateral of scripture, tradition, experience, and reason. We find that these components complement each other nicely.
Religious freedom is a two way street, though, and the right to choose your own religion practice does not mean that you can use the institution of government to impose their church doctrine on the general public. That’s where a lot of churchy folks run into trouble. Take Proposition 8 as an example. When it becomes apparent that there is no compelling objective reason to discriminate against homosexuals then the churches should butt out. If they want to continue banning gay people and homosexual behavior in their own congregations, that is their right. There is plenty of precedent for a church having a code of conduct which is stricter than the law, but no good reason for bending the law to conform to a church’s beliefs, no matter how popular or powerful that church may be.
Sometimes we do criticize or poke fun at other churches, but usually not to “honest religious people who feel differently”. Most likely the target is people who should know better, and especially those who DO know better but won’t admit it. I for one will defend your right to close church doors to gays, but not your right to close the doors of our public courthouses.
October 17th, 2009 at 8:16 am
You really have to wonder about this issue, is it anti gay or is it anti hereto sexual? The line is getting grayer every day.
October 17th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Grayness is in the eyes of the beholder, I reckon. Maybe there are a few extremists who are truly anti-straight but every homosexual that I know only wants to live peaceably with the same rights as anyone else. I have never met one who demands that others live a gay lifestyle or refrain from heterosexual activities.
The war of the words is truly fascinating. Look at the how one side misconstrues the other. Folks who oppose homosexual discrimination are called “anti-homosexual”. If they don’t want fundamentalists to use government institutions to impose religious beliefs on their kids then then are “anti-church”. If they want to preserve the right for a woman to exercise control over her reproductive organs, whether it’s to bear children or avoid conception, they “are pro-abortion”. Those labels are for political effect, not for bearing truth.
October 17th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
John, I agree with much of what you wrote in your last post. My only point is that people should be intellectually honest. If they say they are going to use the Bible as a moral guide, they should do so. Of course, no one actually does. So, people should admit that they’re not using ALL of the Bible as their moral guide, and actually explain how they determine what parts of the Bible to follow and what not to follow. We Episcopalians do this, and regularly get beaten up for it by the Bible thumpers. However, if the thumpers were honest enough to admit how they actually do their theology, they’d have to admit that they pick and choose as much as we do: They just have different criteria for their choices.
That’s perfectly cool, but they should at least be honest enough to admit what they’re doing.