I’ve been thinking a lot about this question over the past several months.  Those who know me know that I am a committed traditionalist in my theology, including about the issues that are confronting The Episcopal Church these days.  So it goes without saying where I stand on that part of what we need in a bishop.

But what if the question of theology were “set aside” for the moment?  What if, for instance, all six of the candidates for bishop were already traditional in their theology [they’re not—three are committed revisionists, although two of those three are, shall we say, more “subtle” about it than the other].  What if our next choice for bishop solely related to what this diocese needs in particular?  What is it that we need as a diocese?

To offer some background for those who are outside of the diocese or who have not followed the search process that closely, I’m going to return briefly to the diocesan survey results and respondents.  The respondents—2051—equalled about 25% of the diocesan ASA and 10% of the membership.

1) Only 1/3 of them had children living in the house.
2) 95% were Caucasian [so much for “diversity”]
3) The largest percentage—39%—were between ages 51 and 65
4) 74% were married—in contrast 1% were “partnered”
5) 73% had been an Episcopalian for more than 20 years
6) The largest percentage—35%—had been at their present parish for more than 20 years

It appears that a mere 83 clergy were respondents to this survey, out of 2051 responses, so this is a largely laity-based survey.

The survey was bold enough to ask the tough questions:
1) 70% strongly or somewhat agree that the diocese should “ease the financial demands on congregations”
2) 57% strongly or somewhat agree that parishes “should have greater control over the acquisition/disposition of their properties” [25% strongly or somewhat disagreed]
3) 88% strongly or somewhat agree that our worship “should be consistent with the Book of Common Prayer”
4) 89% strongly or somewhat agree that it is important for the Episcopal Church to remain in the Anglican Communion
5) 68% strongly or somewhat agree that our next bishop should be supportive of the Windsor Report and the ongoing Windsor Process
6) 60% strongly or somewhat disagree that we should ordain partnered gays and lesbians [33% strongly or somewhat support]
7) 65% strongly or somewhat disagree with “the marriage of gay and lesbian persons in the Episcopal Church [although the gap narrows when it comes to civil unions—47% disagree, 45% agree]

By a ratio of 2 to 1—sometimes almost 3 to 1—the percentage of those who “strongly disagree” with the trends of the larger church out number the percentage of those who “strongly agree” with those trends.

The picture—born out by other parts of the survey and by my own experiences in the diocese—is that of a largely contented group of long-time Episcopalians, overwhelmingly traditional on the issues confronting our church.  Indeed, I am a Gen-Xer [and boy are we aging fast] and I have been at my present parish for 19 years. 

None of the above is a particular surprise to observant participants in the diocese.

With that as background, I’m going to share—at some length—my own thoughts about what Upper South Carolina needs in our next bishop [again, setting aside my own theological views as best I can].  But I’m very interested in the responses from others, both inside and outside the diocese.

Let me dig a little deeper into my diocese.  Our diocesan chart reveals a slightly declining Average Sunday Attendance [where we were once closer to 9000, we’re now closer to 8000—for a loss in ASA of around 10%], with some increase in plate and pledge [currently flat] over the past decade, though not achieving the rate of inflation, particularly considering the insurance costs of the average parish and of our clergy.

If one were to depend solely on that picture, one could—*perhaps*—think that we are a declining, but sort-of-holding-our-own diocese, since we’re not losing parishioners by the bucketfuls, but merely by the dribbles.

But let’s look a bit closer.  [The below stats taken from the Episcopal Church’s stats pages.]

There’s a historic downtown parish in my diocese—the only Episcopal parish in the town and indeed the only one in the county [you’ll get used to hearing that description a lot]—whose rector, the Sunday after The Big Event in 2003, proudly ascended the pulpit and announced that a wonderful thing had happened in The Episcopal Church.  After the ensuing fallout, the rector retired.  The parish—never large over the past 10 years [though I’d be interested in knowing what its numbers were prior to the past decade]—is now at an ASA of about 50.

There’s a historic downtown parish in my diocese—the only Episcopal parish in the town—which, after reeling from 2003, discovered that their rector had an affair.  I am told by one of the lay leaders that half of the ASA left in the aftermath of that discovery.  It is now down to 30 ASA.

There’s a parish in our diocese—a historic downtown parish in a mid-sized, thriving town—which reeled [as usual] after 2003, both financially and in lost parishioners.  Its rector—which many discovered supported the theology of the General Convention actions—took early retirement.  They went through a tedious search process, and in the meantime, lost more members after 2006.  They called a rector, but unfortunately it was discovered that he had an addiction problem.  After a year of turmoil, they went through an additional search process.  In the meantime, the 2009 General Convention arrived.  This church is not dying—it has merely lost half of its ASA.

There is a parish in our diocese—a historic downtown parish in a small town, the only one in the county and if avoided requiring a 20-25 minute drive to the next nearest DUSC parish—whose ASA is now under 30. 

There is a parish in our diocese—a historic downtown parish in a medium sized town, the only one in the county and if avoided, requiring a 20-25 minute drive to the next nearest DUSC parish—who experienced some deep multi-year challenges with its rector concerning financial issues, deep family dysfunction, and his weekly duties.  After several interventions, the rector left.  The parish went through a multi-year search process.  ASA is now at about 40.

That paints, I think, a striking picture of our rural or small/medium sized town parishes.

Many of the parishes that are mid-sized in this diocese have declined in chunks—by one-sixth or one-quarter in ASA, since 2002.  Some of the parishes have clawed their way back to their former highs—and that is commendable effort.

But these are mostly the historic parishes.  What about the mission churches? 

Three missions were planted in the past decade.  Of those three, one is gone—after some $300,000 was poured into it.  Another is at about 40 ASA.  The third has an ASA of about 50.  All were provided significant chunks of mission funding over a period of many years.

Of other less recently founded [but not historic] parishes which started as missions—one reached parish status and had an ASA of 100, but is now down to 45 ASA.  Another, from a high of 150, is now under 80.

What of the larger congregations? 

Of our two resource-sized congregations [we had three resource sized parishes 10 years ago], one achieved a high in ASA of about 900, but has declined to about 750.  The other reached a high of almost 1000, and is now at about 800.

None of the above examples include the one mission that left, in entirety.  Or the other parish that split, with half of its ASA departing.  Or the parish that simply died, stone dead, but which is being reconstituted [excellent work going on there].

As nearly as I can tell, if things continue on as they have, the Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Upper South Carolina will decline to some nice parishes—in Columbia, Greenville, Spartanburg, and perhaps in Aiken and Rock Hill.  But it will cease to exist in most medium and small-sized South Carolina towns in the course of the next decade.

I’m in the secular, corporate world—and by all the numbers and in every meaningful way I can discern, our diocese is in sharp, increasingly intense, and meaningful crisis.  We are serving fewer customers.  Our customer base is aging.  And our customer base is not reproducing [either through families or through evangelism].  We are not holding steady in our largest franchises.  We are not holding steady in our smallest.  We are not holding steady even by planting new churches.

We are in serious decline and every parishioner, every clergyperson should be sobered by what confronts us in Upper South Carolina.

It’s not really the moment to find people to blame.  I don’t blame our bishop, or our clergy, or our laity.

What I can point to are the trends confronting our diocese.

1) In the past decade, our diocese has experienced not one, or two, but three tsunamis—General Conventions 2003, 2006, and 2009. 

2) I can also say that there is a deep theological and practical divide between our clergy and laity, such that the conflict brought on by those every-three-year General Conventions is intensified and heightened.

3) The effect of those two things gives way to something that I have noticed not only in parish life, but also in individual lives and that is, simply, that we as Episcopalians have no further slack in the system.  In the old days, parishes could go through the normal vicissitudes of parish life—a troubled rector, a search process gone wrong, a bad economy, some challenging diocesan issues, a layperson “in the news” for the wrong reasons—and recover from those issues, even thrive, fairly easily.  But unfortunately, with the every-three-year tsunami, parishes simply have not recovered fully when met with everyday standard crises. 

The effect is a rolling tide of cumulative loss and stress and conflict.  Barely has one caught one’s breath from the latest General Convention than a local crisis hits.  Barely has one recovered from—or just salvaged something—after the local crisis, then we have another General Convention.  The diocese is in—and is likely to remain in—a constant state of stress.  This is the “new normal” for TEC parishes, and it’s not something that we are prepared for at all. 

I think that, whether liberal or traditional, most aware and watchful Episcopalians can agree that “the tsunami” will come through every three years now for the foreseeable future in TEC.  The latest was the transgender push—that will be added to and heightened, with other minority sexual orientations in time, continuing again into the future.  Along with that will come Communion of the Unbaptized [already being “studied”—and we know now where that leads], formalization of same-sex blessings in the BCP, and the list goes on and on.  And it’s the most active and aware parishioners—again, whether liberal or traditional—who are the most aware of the long-term stress and conflict.  [The oblivious, God bless them, are in a more blissful and peaceful state by virtue of their ignorance.]  And those active and aware parishioners affect the entire system, whether they leave or stay.

4) Finally, there can be no questioning that one of our “gifts” in Upper South Carolina is not church growth or church planting or evangelism.  We just don’t do it well.  Could we learn?  Sure—I think any faithful Christian can learn how to evangelize and nourish his or her own parish.  But in secular/corporate terms . . . we just don’t have that skill set.

So what do I think we need in the next bishop of Upper South Carolina, coming off of a faithful bishop who has tried to walk a traditional path for the benefit of the laity of this diocese?

I think we need a person who knows how to plant churches and grow them, and how to restore and renew and grow old historic churches too.  I think we need someone who knows how to find clergy who are good at those things too.  I think we need someone who knows how to teach the laity how to do these things too.  I think we need someone who can bring that particular skill set into this diocese and transplant it here.

I think we need someone who—despite the every three year tsunami—can inspire the confidence and trust that will allow a traditional Episcopalian to say “we know the national church is on the rocks—but at least we can look to our own bishop as sane.”

I think we need someone who can acknowledge—without ignoring or spinning the truth—the mess we are in as a church, but who can also help us “keep our eyes on the prize” which is at least growing parishes, discipling parishioners, converting unbelievers, planting churches, and developing leaders, both lay and clergy.

If you choose to respond to this post with your own thoughts [and I’m very interested in those] and you’re a parishioner in Upper South Carolina, please let us know that by mentioning it in your comment.

Over to you, commenters!