Episcopalians win money, lose people over gay ordination

[Sandy]

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/10/150351713 ... pal-battle

The Episcopal Church in America seems bent on destroying itself. It looks like it may dwindle down to just some clergy, though they will be wealthy, living off the assets of the church property they will get back. Too bad, they'll have some really nice buildings, but they'll sit empty.

[Timothy Bonney]

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/10/150351713/a-church-divided-ruling-ends-va-s-episcopal-battle

The Episcopal Church in America seems bent on destroying itself. It looks like it may dwindle down to just some clergy, though they will be wealthy, living off the assets of the church property they will get back. Too bad, they'll have some really nice buildings, but they'll sit empty.

Where do you get in that article that the loss of a few congregations is being "bent on destroying itself?" Or that the church is just dwindling down to clergy? Thanks for some Friday fundamentalist falderal Sandy.

[Haruo]

I don't suppose it would have been possible for the Episcopalians to sublet to the Anglicans, so they could both stay in the space they love and helped buy.

I agree, Tim and Sandy, there's nothing in this article about The Episcopal Church committing suicide. Every denomination has undergone a degree of schism over the issue of gay ordinations. Sandy was editorializing.

[Sandy]

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/10/150351713/a-church-divided-ruling-ends-va-s-episcopal-battle

The Episcopal Church in America seems bent on destroying itself. It looks like it may dwindle down to just some clergy, though they will be wealthy, living off the assets of the church property they will get back. Too bad, they'll have some really nice buildings, but they'll sit empty.

Where do you get in that article that the loss of a few congregations is being "bent on destroying itself?" Or that the church is just dwindling down to clergy? Thanks for some Friday fundamentalist falderal Sandy.

This is one article, about a group of churches in Virginia. Same thing is happening here in the Pittsburgh area, with about 8 churches involved, and if you do a google search, you'll find similar articles about similar happenings all over the country. Look at what happened in Virgina. The Episcopal church got the property, but there's no "shadow" congregation waiting to take it back. The Anglican congregation that had to move out was apparently made up of several hundred individuals, all formerly affiliated with the Episcopal church.

It's not just the Episcopalians. Same thing is happening in PCUSA. Their churches are "buying" their buildings and property out of the denomination, over the same issue. It's a shame that their paid clerical leadership can't see what's happening. You can call it "fundamentalist falderal" if you want to, but it seems that conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists are far from being the only Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin and that those who are openly involved are not qualified for leadership in the Christian church. It's usually couched in terms that conservatives don't believe in "ministry" to gays, but there's a wide gap between ministering to them, and ordaining them to church leadership. Apparently, quite a few mainline Protestants accept that perspective as well.

[Sandy]

I don't suppose it would have been possible for the Episcopalians to sublet to the Anglicans, so they could both stay in the space they love and helped buy.

I agree, Tim and Sandy, there's nothing in this article about The Episcopal Church committing suicide. Every denomination has undergone a degree of schism over the issue of gay ordinations. Sandy was editorializing.

The Episcopal Bishop made this comment about "subleting" to the Anglicans:

According to Jefferts Schori, the only people who can't buy the buildings are the Anglicans.

"I've had two principles throughout this," Jefferts Schori says. "One, that the church receive a reasonable approximation of fair market value for assets that are disposed of; and, second, that we not be in the business of setting up competitors that want to either destroy or replace the Episcopal Church."

Now can you possibly imagine the howling and bashing that would go on if Southern Baptists exhibited that kind of attitude? Here is intolerance in the form of a liberal, female Episcopalian bishop.

From a Catholic source: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/ ... -70-years/

And a quote from the article:

In an Oct. 22 blog entry, commentator David Virtue noted that if the U.S. branch of the Anglican Communion continues to lose active members at the present rate, then “in 26 years there will no longer be anyone attending an Episcopal church.”

If I'm "editorializing," it would certainly appear that my guess is pretty accurate.

[Haruo]

Fremont Baptist actually has a Southern Baptist (or at least SBC-supported) church plant meeting in our sanctuary Sunday evenings. FWIW. But I can easily see how either group might feel threatened by the other and not want to cohabitate.

[Dave Roberts]

Much of this particular case had to do with VA law, some of them barely post-colonial. The protest from a limited number of congregations has certainly had its effect, but the legal ramifications of this were given much more limited latitude. I've found that many of the reports assume that the judges offered some guideline for all cases, even on a national level. This only affected seven (I believe) congregations. I don't have a dog in this fight--just want to keep it attuned to the facts of what actually happened this week. The appelate panel revered a circuit court on narrown grounds. This decision will also probably be appealed.

[Timothy Bonney]

what's happening. You can call it "fundamentalist falderal" if you want to, but it seems that conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists are far from being the only Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin and that those who are openly involved are not qualified for leadership in the Christian church.

Sandy I guess you would be surprised that there are conservative Presbyterians, Methodists, and Episcopalians since you generally paint the mainline with such a broad brush of "liberalism."

The truth is that mainline protestants have something no longer allowed in the SBC, it is called diversity. And yes each and every denomination is dealing with the issue of homosexuality and in each denomination it is the most conservative members who are upset. Is anyone surprised??

[Haruo]

Unless the Episcopalians' gay ordinations began in the 1960s, Sandy, there must be another reason for the decline in membership (your initial linked article says the decline has been going on since 1959). And it could have to do with the religious culture (or lack of it) in the nation as a whole, which has also affected the SBC (or at least the white part of the SBC) in the form of declining baptism rates etc.

[Timothy Bonney]

Unless the Episcopalians' gay ordinations began in the 1960s, Sandy, there must be another reason for the decline in membership (your initial linked article says the decline has been going on since 1959). And it could have to do with the religious culture (or lack of it) in the nation as a whole, which has also affected the SBC (or at least the white part of the SBC) in the form of declining baptism rates etc.

Agreed Hauro. I also believe the decline in membership is probably much greater than many think in all established churches. The Baptists churches I served were seldom open to purging the roll of people who never attend. I see the same thing in Methodist churches. No one wants to remove someone from the roll if their Grandma still attends there even if they've not been to church since their baptism or confirmation.

This isn't a conservative/liberal issue. It is a cultural issue. People in increasing numbers are choosing not to be a part of an established church even if they consider themselves Christian/Religious/Spiritual.

[Ed Pettibone]

what's happening. You can call it "fundamentalist falderal" if you want to, but it seems that conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists are far from being the only Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin and that those who are openly involved are not qualified for leadership in the Christian church.

Sandy I guess you would be surprised that there are conservative Presbyterians, Methodists, and Episcopalians since you generally paint the mainline with such a broad brush of "liberalism."

The truth is that mainline protestants have something no longer allowed in the SBC, it is called diversity. And yes each and every denomination is dealing with the issue of homosexuality and in each denomination it is the most conservative members who are upset. Is anyone surprised??

Ed: TIm, what is mainline about the "mainline" Protestants. How many mainlines can their be? Although the term has only around for approximately 70 years it has already become rather outdated.

And how do you arrive at the conclusion that "it is the most conservative members who are upset" ? It seems to me that you may be projecting an assumption that only conservatives or those to their right can object to homosexuality. And BTW, diversity is not defined solely the inclusiveness of any and all sexual preferences. Indeed the ABC-USA is much more racially diverse than is the SBC but they are gaining on us. And in all honesty while minority individuals have found the ABC a good place for upward mobility, In most places our churches are primarily single culture enclaves. Churches in close proximity to Colleges an universities are sometimes an exception.

Last year Trudy and I did a good bit of traveling in the south off of the interstates, and I was rather surprised at the number of AME (African Methodist Episcopal churches.) By rough count I would say they outnumbered United Methodist about 3 to 1. This was in Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina & Florida. Baptist of what ever stripe where outnumbered by other denominations by a bout 12 to 1. Another surprise was the large number of Hispanic churches even out side of Florida, with a majority being associated with Charismatic denominations.

And Tim in reply to your comments about the reluctance of churches to purge their rolls I have observed a great variance in this in my experience i have been in some baptist churches both SBC and ABC-USA who have at one time or another had pastors who had managed to persuade their congregations that Claiming members who have not been seen for year is dishonest and hinders effective planning essential to true growth both Numerical and Spiritually. Here again until being married to a pastor I had the privilege of selecting where I attended. In the baptist circles in which I have found my self, average attendance has almost always been of more importance than total membership.

[Haruo]

FWIW, not that Fremont is mainline, but attendance seems to be up significantly, and the growth is mostly college students.

[Timothy Bonney]

FWIW, not that Fremont is mainline, but attendance seems to be up significantly, and the growth is mostly college students.

Hauro, the ABC is considered one fo the "seven sisters" of the mainline. Ed is off by about 20 years. The term "mainline" was coined during the modernist/fundamentalist controversy of the 1920s so the term is almost 90 years old. There are other churches that are considered "mainline" depending on which list of churches you look at. But the seven that are always now included are the ABC, UMC, UCC, ECUSA, DoC, PCUSA, and ELCA. Some lists also include AME, AMEZ, and CME (all black Methodist bodies) as well as some Quaker, Moravians, MCC and a few others.

The SBC, the Missouri Synod Lutherans, the Churches of Christ, the PCA, and other conservative split offs of mainline denominations aren't listed as mainline.

Ed you don't have to like the list I didn't create it. I'm just using the terminology as has been used since before you or either one started ministry.

[Ed Pettibone]

FWIW, not that Fremont is mainline, but attendance seems to be up significantly, and the growth is mostly college students.

Hauro, the ABC is considered one fo the "seven sisters" of the mainline. Ed is off by about 20 years. The term "mainline" was coined during the modernist/fundamentalist controversy of the 1920s so the term is almost 90 years old. There are other churches that are considered "mainline" depending on which list of churches you look at. But the seven that are always now included are the ABC, UMC, UCC, ECUSA, DoC, PCUSA, and ELCA. Some lists also include AME, AMEZ, and CME (all black Methodist bodies) as well as some Quaker, Moravians, MCC and a few others.

The SBC, the Missouri Synod Lutherans, the Churches of Christ, the PCA, and other conservative split offs of mainline denominations aren't listed as mainline.

Ed you don't have to like the list I didn't create it. I'm just using the terminology as has been used since before you or either one started ministry.

Ed: Tim I got the 1941 date for the etymology of the term from Webster's Online dictionary.

Where do you get the 1920's ?

Regardless of what some in the Leadership of of the denominations you list as Mainstream want to call us we can no longer claim the title even if at one time it was legitimate: Mainline denominations peaked in membership in the 1950s and have declined steadily in the last half century. From 1960 to 1988, mainline church membership declined from 31 million to 25 million, then fell to 21 million in 2005.[6][7] Today, they are a minority among American Protestants, claiming approximately 15 percent of American adults among their adherents.[8] This is found under the heading mainstream churches in Wikipedia.

You can call a Poodle a Doberman if you like but their are few gullible enough to buy it. And btw, Beagles are more popular than either Poodles or Dobermans. My favorite the Boson Bull is about half way down the list.

I have an idea that Haruo is simply being honest when he suggest that Fremont may not be mainline.

[Timothy Bonney]

Ed where did you get the idea that "mainline" has to do with membership numbers? Mainline means the original mainstream of the different Protestant faiths of which, primarily, fundamentalists chose to break from. It doesn't matter if some of the fundamentalists groups are now larger. That doesn't make them "mainline."

The Book by Andrew D. Walsh, "Religion, Economics, and Public Policy" published in 2000 is my source for the 1920s. The dictionary isn't always the best source for definitions or history of religious terms.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed where did you get the idea that "mainline" has to do with membership numbers? Mainline means the original mainstream of the different Protestant faiths of which, primarily, fundamentalists chose to break from. It doesn't matter if some of the fundamentalists groups are now larger. That doesn't make them "mainline."

The Book by Andrew D. Walsh, "Religion, Economics, and Public Policy" published in 2000 is my source for the 1920s. The dictionary isn't always the best source for definitions or history of religious terms.

ED: The MACMILLIAN online dictionary defines mainline as; relating to the most common way of doing things or thinking about things
thus the mainline Protestant churches.

Numbers are involved in determining "The most common" are they not?

I still am not convinced that the 7 denominations you have listed any longer meet that criteria, if indeed they ever did. While the 7 on your list do have elements in common they are not uniform in practice.

You use of the term is something akin to Southern Baptist who think they are the only Baptist. Or Methodist and Nazarenes who think their Manuasl of discipline is the only way to do church. And note, I am not saying you are one of that type of Methodist.

[Haruo]

And here I thought "mainline" had to do with an approach to injecting drugs.

[Sandy]

Unless the Episcopalians' gay ordinations began in the 1960s, Sandy, there must be another reason for the decline in membership (your initial linked article says the decline has been going on since 1959). And it could have to do with the religious culture (or lack of it) in the nation as a whole, which has also affected the SBC (or at least the white part of the SBC) in the form of declining baptism rates etc.

Agreed Hauro. I also believe the decline in membership is probably much greater than many think in all established churches. The Baptists churches I served were seldom open to purging the roll of people who never attend. I see the same thing in Methodist churches. No one wants to remove someone from the roll if their Grandma still attends there even if they've not been to church since their baptism or confirmation.

This isn't a conservative/liberal issue. It is a cultural issue. People in increasing numbers are choosing not to be a part of an established church even if they consider themselves Christian/Religious/Spiritual.

The decline has been going on since 1959, but you will notice the most significant portion of it, right up next to half of the total, has occurred since 2003, the year they ordained an openly gay bishop.

Most of those Episcopalians, or former Episcopalians, aren't going away. They are joining other churches, most notably the Anglicans, though as far as overall numbers are concenred, most of them are joining their conservative Methodist, Presbyterian and D of C brethren in beating a path to the nearest conservative, Evangelical church, most likely the non-denominational variety, or perhaps to the Charismatics. Some have made their way into SBC churches. Ex-Methodists, Presbyterians and Disciples folk made up the lion's share of new members who came our way at my last church in Houston.

[Timothy Bonney]

ED: The MACMILLIAN online dictionary defines mainline as...

Ed you are kidding right? Secular dictionaries are not valid sources for theological research or definitions. They are considered at best secondary sources. I quoted a Christian historian and you quoted an online dictionary. Think about that a minute.

[Timothy Bonney]

So Sandy shall we base how we decid what is true on numbers now? If that is the case we all need to convert to Roman Catholicism because they are the biggest. Size has nothing to with truth. And in fact if you are truly prophetic you very well may lose church members.

I have a friend who nearly lost a pastorate during the 60s over his stand on equality of the races. He lost church members. I suppose he should have kept his mouth shut about racism to keep the numbers up?

Even if you disagree with the theological stance of the Episcopal Church you should respect their willingness to take a stand even when it costs them. That is the true measure of conviction on any issue, standing for what you believe to be true and not counting the cost. And it will cost the ECUSA. They'll lose a lot more money in offerings than they will get in keeping their property from being taken.

[Timothy Bonney]

You use of the term is something akin to Southern Baptist who think they are the only Baptist. Or Methodist and Nazarenes who think their Manuasl of discipline is the only way to do church. And note, I am not saying you are one of that type of Methodist.

No, I use the term the way American Baptists and CBF Baptists use the term "historic" Baptists because they follow the original historic principles of the denomination. Mainline denominations are primarily the streams off of which most of the other denominations have split from here in the US.

Honestly Ed I can't believe we are arguing about this one. If you can't even accept conventional definitions of terminology that is used in Protestant history for the last 90 years without arguing about its general usage then you are too argumentative to reason with. But heck, I'm firmly convince you'd argue about the sky being blue if given the chance.

[Ed Pettibone]

And here I thought "mainline" had to do with an approach to injecting drugs.

Ed: Thanks Hauro. That is how it is defined in many online searches, which may have something to do with my aversion to the term.

And Tim, ABC, as ABC-USA or the American Baptist Convention, even "Northern Baptist" did not exist until 1907, some 6 plus decades after the SBC was formed, in their departure from the Triennial Convention. 1907 is how long before your indefinite "1920's" date for the origin of the Mainline term? If you offered a particular authority for the, 20's date I missed it. I do not deny that it has been used and is still used at times. My argument is that use the term has never been accurate and is at the best archaic.

I again recommend Dan R. Stiver's excellent The Philosophy of Religious Language, Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, MA., 1996

[Sandy]

So Sandy shall we base how we decid what is true on numbers now? If that is the case we all need to convert to Roman Catholicism because they are the biggest. Size has nothing to with truth. And in fact if you are truly prophetic you very well may lose church members.

I have a friend who nearly lost a pastorate during the 60s over his stand on equality of the races. He lost church members. I suppose he should have kept his mouth shut about racism to keep the numbers up?

Even if you disagree with the theological stance of the Episcopal Church you should respect their willingness to take a stand even when it costs them. That is the true measure of conviction on any issue, standing for what you believe to be true and not counting the cost. And it will cost the ECUSA. They'll lose a lot more money in offerings than they will get in keeping their property from being taken.

That's generally the direction these conversations take. In pointing out that the ECUSA is losing members at a rate that has accelerated as a result of the ordination of a gay bishop, and the stance of the church's hierarchical leadership in approving of this, we get into the "numbers deciding truth" argument. But that's subterfuge. It's not that numbers have determined the truth. The fact is, in a religious hierarchy, the attitude displayed by clergy is exactly what Bishop Jefferts Schori is demonstrating toward those who have left the church and joined the more conservative Anglican fellowship. Apparently, only the clergy are allowed to think for themselves and discern the Holy Spirit and the congregation must accept that and keep quiet. They are, after all, the only ones who have the educational credentials to be able to determine what the Bible's writers meant when they wrote, right?

I've heard for years now how the liberal end of American Christianity "celebrates diversity," and is the very epitome of tolerance and acceptance. Yet, rather than engage their congregations in helping discern whether some diversity is actually condoning and facilitating sin, instead of helping people deal with conviction and experience true repentance and forgiveness, the attitude is "accept the diversity and tolerance or don't let the door hit your rear on the way out!" If a significant number of people seem to be in disagreement, by conviction, with the pronouncements of the hierarchy, that should indicate there's a problem, and maybe the decision made by the clergy isn't consistent with what the people in the pews have discerned from the scripture. Unfortunately, that seems to be beyond the grasp of a lot of mainline Protestant leadership.

[KeithE]

So Sandy shall we base how we decid what is true on numbers now? If that is the case we all need to convert to Roman Catholicism because they are the biggest. Size has nothing to with truth. And in fact if you are truly prophetic you very well may lose church members.

I have a friend who nearly lost a pastorate during the 60s over his stand on equality of the races. He lost church members. I suppose he should have kept his mouth shut about racism to keep the numbers up?

Even if you disagree with the theological stance of the Episcopal Church you should respect their willingness to take a stand even when it costs them. That is the true measure of conviction on any issue, standing for what you believe to be true and not counting the cost. And it will cost the ECUSA. They'll lose a lot more money in offerings than they will get in keeping their property from being taken.

That's generally the direction these conversations take. In pointing out that the ECUSA is losing members at a rate that has accelerated as a result of the ordination of a gay bishop, and the stance of the church's hierarchical leadership in approving of this, we get into the "numbers deciding truth" argument. But that's subterfuge. It's not that numbers have determined the truth. The fact is, in a religious hierarchy, the attitude displayed by clergy is exactly what Bishop Jefferts Schori is demonstrating toward those who have left the church and joined the more conservative Anglican fellowship. Apparently, only the clergy are allowed to think for themselves and discern the Holy Spirit and the congregation must accept that and keep quiet. They are, after all, the only ones who have the educational credentials to be able to determine what the Bible's writers meant when they wrote, right?

I've heard for years now how the liberal end of American Christianity "celebrates diversity," and is the very epitome of tolerance and acceptance. Yet, rather than engage their congregations in helping discern whether some diversity is actually condoning and facilitating sin, instead of helping people deal with conviction and experience true repentance and forgiveness, the attitude is "accept the diversity and tolerance or don't let the door hit your rear on the way out!" If a significant number of people seem to be in disagreement, by conviction, with the pronouncements of the hierarchy, that should indicate there's a problem, and maybe the decision made by the clergy isn't consistent with what the people in the pews have discerned from the scripture. Unfortunately, that seems to be beyond the grasp of a lot of mainline Protestant leadership.

But Sandy what you said in red above is not true. The members were/are not being told to leave the Episcopal Church; they are leaving on their own accord - most likely because of a false paradigm in American Christianity that says what Jesus is really after is someone’s idea of correct beliefs. With the Episcopalians, we have one group letting diversity of beliefs/doctrine/ethical rules cause their own exit in a spate of ugly feelings (not exactly loving their enemies). The clergy would no doubt love to sit down and discuss the matter further but instead the offended leave with judgmental attitudes that Jesus so thoroughly condemned.

Jesus said, did He not, that the way is narrow so why are you inclined to say numbers have anything to do with finding truth? And why are people so hyped up about correct beliefs/doctrine/ethical rules? And why do you ascribe some sort of elitism to Schori or Robinson?

Jesus asks that we follow Him in loving all (including enemies), caring for the poor/sick/orphaned/widowed, being non-retaliatory, etc. These days the continual lack of attention to the poor, the aged, and those unable to pay for health care (by our churches and our government) is not only overlooked but sometimes condemned (e.g. Ayn Rand). Cries of 'kill the terrorists' are actually applauded in many so-called Christian circles. What Gospel do these people read!

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Ed: Sandy, that is a good statement on the need for some to rethink their use of "diversity". But please don't through the baby out with the bathwater in your condemnation of the word. I think I hear you acknowledging that diversity has to be judged on what elements are being promoted by a call to diversity. I certainly means different things to different people

And Tim when you say to me "But heck, I'm firmly convince you'd argue about the sky being blue if given the chance". I would say that depends on what day and the atmospheric conditions. I have seen blue skies, but I have also seen skies that where red, grey, yellow, black and even green. Thank you for that "chance" to comment on colors of the sky.

http://www.stormeyes.org/tornado/SkyPix/tuliacg.htm

And Keith, I do not think Sandy was talking specifically about the Episcopal church is the comment you highlighted in red.

And while you quoted a part of Matt; 7.13 to Sandy why did you not acknowledge that it was Jesus who quantified his comments by saying "For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction and many there is which go in thereat" And goes on in what we know as verse 14, to say "Because straight is gate and narrow the is the way which leadeth unto life and few there is that find it." And yes I see his comments about judgement earlier in the same passage. He has not said "Do not Judge" he has said "Do not judge least thou be judged" And at what is labeled verse 13 he has shifted direction for the third after those comments on judgement. The first shift was Verse 6 , the second at verse 7.