U.S. Episcopal Church Shrinking Over Same-Sex Marriage

[Webster]

OneNewsNow: Episcopal Church in U.S. shrinking over same-sex marriage

Attendance at Episcopal churches continues its downward spiral.

At the height of its popularity in the United States, the Episcopal Church had more than 3.5 million members. By 2010, that number dropped to less than 2 million, and the decline is still underway, according to numbers from the denomination's Office of the General Convention.

Institute of Religion and Democracy Communications Manager and Anglican Program Director Jeff Walton says the decline actually started in the back in the 1960s, but picked up steam again in the 80s and 90s with the writings of Episcopal theologian John Shelby Spong.

“He said in order for Christianity to survive and grow, Christians needed to go and shed traditionally understood beliefs – not only about human sexuality, but about the role of Jesus Christ, His identity, what sin and human nature looks like – a variety of different things that are pretty key to the Christian understanding of mankind and its relationship to God,” Walton pointed out.

He notes, however, that not all Episcopal Dioceses are deteriorating at the same rate. “The domestic U.S. dioceses are declining at a much faster rate than the overseas dioceses,” Walton stressed. “It is distinctive because many of these overseas dioceses spoke out strongly against same-sex marriage.

In other countries, the Episcopal Church is known as the Anglican Communion, and in fact, a growing number of disaffected churches in the U.S. are signing up to be part of the more conservative Anglican Church in North America. “The ACNA now has its own American leaders and is a small, but growing church,” Walton informed. “It has about 140,000 members that are spread across just over a thousand congregations that are now present in 49 U.S. states and 10 Canadian provinces.”

 

[Josiah]

SADLY, it's a factor in nearly all Protestant faith communities (and to a lesser degree in Catholicism)..... It's FAR from just an Episcopal problem.


There is a growing rift between conservative/historic wings....and more liberal/relativistic wings. What divides Christians has less and less to do with issues that created their faith communities (perhaps 500 years ago) and more to do with conservative vs. liberal. A new alignment has been developing for the past 150 years or so. It is what has lead to the "Evangelical" movement, etc.


It's true in my faith community, too. On the conservative/historic side (we tend to call this "Confessional") there is the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, and the Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Together we are about one-third of American Lutherans. On the liberal side, there is The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America which represents about 2/3's of US Lutherans. The ELCA is gushing members faster, but like most of Christianity in the US, Lutheranism is shrinking (at least in terms of percentage of the US population). As LCMS, I praise much in the ELCA in terms of being clear on justification, on being liturgical and sacramental.... but in some ways, I align more with other conservative/historic Christians even more, such as in the Anglican or Reformed traditions (EVEN at times with Catholicism). The same rift" can be seen in Reformed churches, Episcopal/Anglican churches, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist faith communities.


Some years ago, I "met" a man on the net who was a member of an Episcopal parish very close to where I lived. I knew him as his parish split... when through legal suits and counter suits .... and finally resulted in most of the members leaving and starting an Anglican church affiliated with a different, non USA Bishop (I think from South American but I'm not sure anymore). They "lost" all the property in the deal (which the remaining people had to sell since they could not support them) but they found a very conservative, historic, "Thirty-Nine Articles" Anglican pastor - very prolife, pro-family, traditional values, "male only" clergy person. I have no idea if this parish is growing.




.

 

[Albion]

The reports of the decline of The Episcopal Church are true. It's worse, in fact, than this report makes out.

But the title of this thread unfortunately misleads the reader. The article that is quoted is more accurate, not confining the 'problem' to same-sex marriage (which obviously cannot be the cause by itself if the decline dates back to the late 20th century).

 

[psalms 91]

I believe that we are in the end times and as such church attendance will be way down since so many will walk away or become rebellious, the bible tells us that and the same sex issue is just one that divides the chruch but it is an important one and the main driving force that I see within the body

 

[Bluezone777]

I think some of it is also churches walking away from the Bible as well. A church that refuses to stand on God's word is instead choosing to stand on sinking sand and should expect to eventually fall apart for it.

 

[Andrew]

I remember looking at wikipedia about this church not too long ago about how they are tolerant on gay marriage, found it very odd

 

[tango]

I think some of it is also churches walking away from the Bible as well. A church that refuses to stand on God's word is instead choosing to stand on sinking sand and should expect to eventually fall apart for it.

The bitterly ironic thing is when churches try to remain "relevant" by being more and more like the world around, when so many people are desperately looking to see if there is more to life and wanting something other than the world around. To loosely borrow an analogy Jesus used, if the world wants more flavor in something they add salt, not a hugely watered down version of salt that someone massively reined in because they were afraid people would find it too salty.

 

[hedrick]

There's no question that churches departed over homosexuality. But that's mostly a blip on the larger trend of declining membership. I'm not part of an Episcopalean church but my church has essentially the same characteristics. I think there're a problem trying to maintain a church that accepts Biblical scholarship, with standard history and science. Once you start adopting the mindset that looks critically at evidence, it's really pretty hard to convince people that there's something beyond the physical, much less a loving God, and if there is some kind of God, that it makes sense to engage in regular religious activities.

I don't think there's any realistic hope of convincing our members or kids of conservative Christianity. If our churches became evangelical, they might not shrink as fast, but I doubt it would grow the total number of evangelical Christians, just distribute which churches they're in.

If we don't find a solution to this problem, Christianity is going to be associated with a part of the population that accepts traditional culture. In Europe that has meant virtual extinction. It's hard to know whether that's true of the US or not -- traditional culture has survived a lot better than many expected, and it may stage a comeback in Europe. But I don't think the association is desirable.

 

[Albion]

I remember looking at wikipedia about this church not too long ago about how they are tolerant on gay marriage, found it very odd

To be more precise about the coming demise of this church, in 1960, about 6,000,000 Americans identified as Episcopalians. By the early 2000s the church reported 3,000,000 members. Today, it is about 1,600,000 and approximately 1,000 members leave each month. The ASA (average Sunday attendance) per parish is about 65 persons. In neighboring Canada, it is anticipated that the entire church will disappear in another generation or so. On the other hand, none of this refers to the independent Anglican/Episcopal churches in North America that, against great odds, are growing.

 

[tango]

There's no question that churches departed over homosexuality. But that's mostly a blip on the larger trend of declining membership. I'm not part of an Episcopalean church but my church has essentially the same characteristics. I think there're a problem trying to maintain a church that accepts Biblical scholarship, with standard history and science. Once you start adopting the mindset that looks critically at evidence, it's really pretty hard to convince people that there's something beyond the physical, much less a loving God, and if there is some kind of God, that it makes sense to engage in regular religious activities.

I don't think there's any realistic hope of convincing our members or kids of conservative Christianity. If our churches became evangelical, they might not shrink as fast, but I doubt it would grow the total number of evangelical Christians, just distribute which churches they're in.

If we don't find a solution to this problem, Christianity is going to be associated with a part of the population that accepts traditional culture. In Europe that has meant virtual extinction. It's hard to know whether that's true of the US or not -- traditional culture has survived a lot better than many expected, and it may stage a comeback in Europe. But I don't think the association is desirable.

I think we have to be careful about the concept of looking at evidence, when "evidence" is often based on speculation and joining the dots starting from a position that seeks to assume there is no intelligent designer out there. As a guy on another board I use put it, if we see a paper cup blowing down the street we figure it had a creator and yet when we look at the complexity of life and the universe we're happy to shrug and figure it all just came together as part of a cosmic fluke. It makes no sense.

We also need to consider how things are presented. It's easy to get endlessly bogged down in a relentless list of statements that begin "Thou shalt not" because in a world that says "Do what thou will" it's an instant turn-off. We need to be about looking to God as the author of life rather than as a stern finger-wagging grandparent from another era who is just looking for a reason to punish us and obeying God's will for our lives because it's the right thing to do rather than for the sake of obeying endless rules and regulations. Even there, despite the increasing tendency to adopt moral relativism in some form or another even the most progressive and tolerant people have to accept, sooner or later, that there are some absolute rules that need to be followed or nothing works. It's a bit of a tired example to keep going back to the notion that the likes of Hitler and Stalin were merely following their own moral code and that it's just too bad for those who got in the way but we can even modernise the concept. The liberal, progressive types are all about inclusivity and tolerance of all lifestyles, sexualities, gender identities, whatever (with the possible exception of conservative Christianity, but that's another argument) but their stance that it's OK to express your sexuality in whatever manner and with whichever partner you choose is only valid if you accept moral absolutes. If you don't accept moral absolutes they have no more right to say it's OK than anyone else has to say it's not OK, and you're right back to whatever extreme you want to push. Under moral relativism you don't get to complain about Islamic nations executing people for being gay because they are merely living their own moral code.

I can't help thinking a lot of the environmental movement is driven by people looking for an answer to "is there more than this?". Our society is good at keeping people busy - you spend however many years in school, then college, then work, raising a family, being kept busy by this or that and never really questioning much of anything. But many people, sooner or later, will hit a trigger that makes them ask "what's the point of all of this?" and start looking for a deeper meaning. Some will reach a career or other pinnacle and then lose any sense of purpose, others will be at the bottom of the heap and wonder why they should bother struggling to play the game if it seems everything is stacked against them, others may be dealing with bereavement or illness or something else that makes them wonder what's going on. It might even be someone looking for meaning at work, figuring that everything they are doing will be forgotten within a few years and wanting to be remembered for something. Why do we even care about being remembered, if we aren't looking for meaning in it all - if life is nothing more than a cosmic fluke why don't we just spend our "threescore-and-ten" years enjoying ourselves without worrying about consequences for future generations or anyone else? If there really is no purpose in life and it is all just a cosmic fluke, what does it matter if we destroy the planet to the point it can't sustain life any more? All it means is the fluke had an endpoint and the universe can try again with its next fluke.

Every which way we look people are searching for something. It's just that there are so many distractions and so many things the devil can throw up as being the answer, when only one of them is actually the answer.

 

[hedrick]

Every which way we look people are searching for something. It's just that there are so many distractions and so many things the devil can throw up as being the answer, when only one of them is actually the answer.

I agree. Things will replace the church, and in many cases they won't be good things to center your life on.

That doesn't mean global warming and other environmental problems aren't real. For so many Christians to deny them is actually a big apologetic problem. But environmentalism as a cause isn't God, and shouldn't replace him.

 

[tango]

I agree. Things will replace the church, and in many cases they won't be good things to center your life on.

Things are already replacing the church - look at the way people worship celebrities and how parts of the green movement are becoming as much of a religion as anything else.

That doesn't mean global warming and other environmental problems aren't real. For so many Christians to deny them is actually a big apologetic problem. But environmentalism as a cause isn't God, and shouldn't replace him.

I'm not sure it is an apologetics problem for Christians to question much of the environmental movement, any more than it is for anyone else to question it. From a simple scientific perspective it's perfectly reasonable to ask what observations it would take to disprove the hypothesis that human activity is changing the climate - the way things are at present just about every possible combination of observations is taken to prove the hypothesis, and a hypothesis that can never be disproven is more of a statement of faith than a scientific starting point. An unusually hard winter is "proof" of climate change, as is a mild winter or a wet winter, and likewise for a hot summer, a wet summer, a mild summer, a dry summer, just about every single thing we could possibly observe fits in to the theory as "proof" that climate change is here and we need to do something. It's not unreasonable to question what, if any, science underpins the notion that it's OK to keep polluting liberally as long as we pay more in taxes for the privilege. None of these things has much to do with apologetics.

What does make a difference is if we argue that we are stewards of the planet God gave us and act accordingly, which means living in a way that doesn't wreck the planet rather than jumping on every passing environmental fad. Being a good steward is so much more complex than the single-issue platforms favored by so many.

 

[hedrick]

I'm not sure it is an apologetics problem for Christians to question much of the environmental movement, any more than it is for anyone else to question it. From a simple scientific perspective it's perfectly reasonable to ask what observations it would take to disprove the hypothesis that human activity is changing the climate

It's an apologetics problem for people trying to reach those outside the traditionalist culture, because we know what the evidence actually shows. For Christians to oppose evolution, the big bang, the existence of global warming, etc, make it look like Christians don't know how to judge evidence.

This isn't a problem everywhere. But it is if we want to reach many people in the US and most in Europe. If Christians are wrong on matters where evidence is visible why believe us on spiritual matters, where evidence is more subtle?

 

[tango]

It's an apologetics problem for people trying to reach those outside the traditionalist culture, because we know what the evidence actually shows. For Christians to oppose evolution, the big bang, the existence of global warming, etc, make it look like Christians don't know how to judge evidence.

We know what we're told the evidence shows, but what about gaps in evidence? Evolution theory goes so far but only so far and struggles to answer questions like the appearance irreducibly complex processes. Evolution also requires a massive assumption that something non-living came to life all by itself, and so passes the buck to a theory of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis theories can go so far even if they can't come up with anything observable in a laboratory but then require huge assumptions in that they require something non-living to exist in the first place before it came to life. So they pass the buck to another theory. The big bang is a theory. It's a bit of a tired cliche response to ask "ah yes, but who lit the fuse?" but even so the theory that something appeared out of nothing, blew up and created everything does itself require a huge leap of faith.

The issue of global warming is something that is so politically charged these days it's hard to imagine anyone in the scientific community being very vocal about even asking questions about it. It has become like a religion rather than a science, with so many things just taken as fact, with its own high priests who act in complete opposition to they way they expect everyone else to act (think of the great and the good flying around in private jets while telling the rest of us how irresponsible it is to own an SUV), and it's hard to find anything that would disprove the theories. It really is like discussing matters of faith with someone who has their own reasons for belief that don't withstand scientific scrutiny, except the person is insisting it's science. Of course they don't understand any of the science behind it so they just refer to generic concepts that they read online or fall back on the logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority". They can't explain it but they still want to argue it. And the idea that we're facing an existential crisis that will destroy life on the planet by the year 1990 - no, wait, maybe by 2000 - no, but it will be pretty bad by 2020 - hang on, we have to act or it will be unbearable by 2050 - and yet the best we can come up with is "introduce a new tax on...." to solve it. If climate change is real and if it's caused by human activity and if it is going to end life as we know it, why is it even legal for an individual to own a private jet? Why do we ship huge amounts of stuff around the world? The whole thing smacks of just another way to try and gain control over peoples' lives - Al Gore can have his private jet even as he wags his fingers at me for turning the heat from 64 to 66 during a particularly cold spell because, you know, think of the carbon emissions.

If anything I'd say the lack of questioning of the glaring conflict between "the sky is falling" and "let me get in a private jet and visit somewhere exotic to talk about it with other people who flew in on their private jets" indicates a lack of critical thinking.

This isn't a problem everywhere. But it is if we want to reach many people in the US and most in Europe. If Christians are wrong on matters where evidence is visible why believe us on spiritual matters, where evidence is more subtle?

The trouble is people have developed their own faith, and critical thinking is a rapidly vanishing skill. People hold things like man-made climate change, evolution, the big bang etc as their statements of faith and, since they can't present a coherent argument as to why they think they are true without relying on something vague like "but science says...." even if they can't explain much if anything of just wht the science says, they just ignore anyone with a different statement of faith.

Jesus said the world would know we were his disciples because we love one another. He never said the world would be able to tell us apart because we had the most clever arguments, or we could explain how Biblical texts relating to creation compare to modern theories of evolution, just that we would love one another. Perhaps what the world needs more than anything else is the sight of a church where people do love each other despite having different opinions on things the world insists on fighting over. Maybe I vote Republican while you vote Democrat. Maybe I believe in man-made climate change and you don't. Maybe I take a different view to whether gay people should be allowed to serve in church. If we can love each other despite differences, that will really set us apart from the world in these divided times.

 

[hedrick]

Global warming actually isn't the most serious issue. Christians can differ on that. The more serious problem is claims about the accuracy of various things in Genesis, as well as sexual / gender issues. Many (most?) traditional Christians think the Gospel doesn't work if there wasn't a literal Adam. I disagree, but an outsider is most likely going to see the people who think it's an issue.

Global warming and things like that are a secondary issue, but still significant I think. Figuring out what to believe isn't entirely a logical enterprise. If the Christians you know about generally believe in things you think are false, it's going to an issue. In CF, there are still ongoing discussions about a flat earth. I really, really hope no one I know looks at that site when considering their commitment to Christianity. I think an openly atheist site would be less damaging.

But this is a digression. Most of the people falling away from mainline Christianity aren't turned off by conservative Christianity. They're just not seeing any reason to believe God exists, or that if he does it matters.

 

[tango]

Global warming actually isn't the most serious issue. Christians can differ on that. The more serious problem is claims about the accuracy of various things in Genesis, as well as sexual / gender issues. Many (most?) traditional Christians think the Gospel doesn't work if there wasn't a literal Adam. I disagree, but an outsider is most likely going to see the people who think it's an issue.

Sexual and gender issues have really come into the limelight because of identity politics. I only have very limited experience of dealing with gay people because most of the people I know are not openly gay. The ones I know who are openly gay are regular people who happen to be gay. Sure, maybe they attend the annual Pride march but in their day to day life you wouldn't necessarily even know they are gay. The couple who own a local coffee shop I really like are gay - they are two men married to each other - but you could very easily go in there, order your coffee and cake, sit and eat/drink it and leave without knowing anything at all about his sexual preferences. He's not "in yer face" about it at all, he owns the local coffee shop and he happens to be gay.

Gender issues are much the same - so much chatter about gender issues is about expecting the overwhelming majority to cater to the whims of a tiny minority, in ways that just don't work. It makes so much more sense to figure solutions that work for everybody and for the church to figure a coherent stance based on Scripture. If Scripture says something is sinful then it's sinful, end of story. Whatever modern day liberals might like to think, if we accept Scripture as being definitive truth then we don't get to change it because we find it inconvenient or we'd really like to bend the rules a bit.

One problem that I think Christians tend to have is that we tend to fall on either side of an issue when perhaps the truth is nearer the middle. Since we're on the topic of sexuality the issue of homosexuality seems like as good an example as any. Again, if Scripture says something is sinful then it's sinful and we don't get to bend the rules to suit our desires. That said the question of "is it OK to be gay" needs to be more carefully considered, with specific regard on what exactly the question asker means by "to be gay". It seems to me that a lot of Christians either land on the "it's all OK, if you have a same-sex partner that's just fine" side or they take an opposing extreme and act as if homosexual desire makes someone inherently sinful and, not only that, act as if homosexuality is some kind of Big Bad Mega-Sin that stands in a league all on its own. Because, you know, I might struggle with this or that but it's pretty normal while the Nasty Icky Gay People do, you know, "that" - ick - and that makes them far more sinful than I could ever be.

Global warming and things like that are a secondary issue, but still significant I think. Figuring out what to believe isn't entirely a logical enterprise. If the Christians you know about generally believe in things you think are false, it's going to an issue. In CF, there are still ongoing discussions about a flat earth. I really, really hope no one I know looks at that site when considering their commitment to Christianity. I think an openly atheist site would be less damaging.

A major problem with this line of thinking is that it simply makes no sense. If you take any group of people who are united by one single aspect you'll almost certainly find some members of that group that hold a viewpoint you consider to be bizarre, maybe even ludicrous. Maybe some Christians do believe in a flat earth. So what? To say that some Christians believe in silly stuff doesn't mean that all Christians believe silly stuff, or that everything Christians believe is silly. It makes no more sense than taking a tinpot dictator like Robert Mugabe and concluding from his antics that all black people hate white farmers.

But this is a digression. Most of the people falling away from mainline Christianity aren't turned off by conservative Christianity. They're just not seeing any reason to believe God exists, or that if he does it matters.

They may not believe God exists. Frankly it's sad to see Christians who act as if God is absolutely everything to them for a couple of hours on Sunday morning and then spend the other 166 hours of the week acting as if God is nothing. Just like it's hard to believe in man-made climate change when the most vocal proponents of the theory tend to have the largest carbon footprints, it's easy to see how people struggle to believe in Jesus Christ when his most vocal proponents don't live as if they believe in what they are saying.

Hence it all goes back to the idea that the world will know us if we love one another.

 

[MennoSota]

God is revealing the tares amongst the wheat. It is the blessed pruning that will strengthen the church.
Hebrews 12:1-2 Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.

 

[JRT]

When we observe the shrinkage of a church there could be any number of reasons. One reason that is seldom considered is that the church is undergoing a cleansing.

 

[Albion]

When we observe the shrinkage of a church there could be any number of reasons. One reason that is seldom considered is that the church is undergoing a cleansing.

If so, there would be some indication that something, anything, was getting cleaner, though.

 

[tango]

It's an apologetics problem for people trying to reach those outside the traditionalist culture, because we know what the evidence actually shows. For Christians to oppose evolution, the big bang, the existence of global warming, etc, make it look like Christians don't know how to judge evidence.

This isn't a problem everywhere. But it is if we want to reach many people in the US and most in Europe. If Christians are wrong on matters where evidence is visible why believe us on spiritual matters, where evidence is more subtle?

Just an aside here, apparently there are a number of theoretical physicists out there who aren't convinced about the big bang.

https://undark.org/article/physicists-rewrite-origin-universe-inflation/

Apparently the theory of inflation has hit a few problems along the way, at which point its proponents added extra wrinkles to it. Some of the "problems" it addresses aren't actually problems at all - the article comments on how the theory of inflation (aka the Big Bang theory) can explain why the universe is flat, but there's no mathematical reason why the universe needs to be flat.

There's quite a difference between judging evidence and simply parroting what the scientific establishment currently believes to be true. There was a time when the scientific establishment believed the earth was flat, that Thalidomide was a safe way to prevent morning sickness and so on. That's not to discredit science, merely to observe that the agreement between numerous scientists doesn't mean something is necessarily true. When people say "the science is settled" often what they mean is that everything suits what they want and they don't want any criticism of what they are trying to do.

The article also touches on the problem of funding and how scientists naturally want to keep their jobs. From the article:

Today, Penrose and other physicists who seek to rewrite the narrative of how the universe began continue to face an uphill battle. To many of them, the dismissals and rejections feel more personal than scientific, driven by an academic job culture that penalizes risk taking. They worry that — for young professionals especially — the quest to unravel the deepest mysteries of the early universe will take a backseat to a far more mundane pursuit: career survival.

Among those critics is Sabine Hossenfelder, a theoretical physicist at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies in Germany. In her view, a lot of people certainly want inflation to be the answer, and it’s gotten to the point where “people keep repeating statements that are obviously wrong.”

“It has become very politicized,” Hossenfelder contends. “This is particularly pronounced in the United States, where people are really worried about their funding.” The anxiety is evident, she says, in the way scientists talk about securing money for their research.
Penrose agrees. “The competition at the universities is horrendous,” he says. “You’ve got to get a job.” But, he adds, the people doing the hiring are the ones who believe in these fashionable ideas.