Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Total visitors right now (TitusOneNine & Stand Firm): 349
Greg Griffith
Episcopal Majority Mulls Name Change
Wednesday, November 29, 2006 • 11:18 pm
Interestingly, it appeared from a report of the communications workshop that the name Episcopal Majority may not stick, as some participants thought it may be too reminiscent of the Moral Majority or Silent Majority. And at least a few attendees apparently wondered how TEM could confirm that it indeed represents "the majority for the mainstream."

Somehow I missed this story from a few weeks ago at the Christian Challenge:
A friend's question - "What are you going to do about it?" - spurred a "conversation" between Fr. Coats and himself about a possible nationwide organization, which led to a "manifesto" sent to friends around the church, and their responses. The pace was quickened by the establishment of a "blogspot" in August (episcopalmajorityonline.org ), which Fly said got 7,000 hits in the first three weeks, and had had 30,000 as of November 3. (This, despite the fact that other versions of the Episcopal Majority domain name were quickly secured by those deemed to be from "the dark side" - conservatives.)

Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they mean "visits" instead of "hits," which is a completely different thing. 7,000 visits in 3 weeks. To put TEM's web traffic in perspective, Drell's Descants gets 7,000 visits in 10 days. Stand Firm gets that many in 2 days. TitusOneNine gets that many every 36 hours.

To put an even finer point on it, according to this page at their site, there are 325 people who have signed up as "members" of the organization. This means that during its first three weeks, the site got fewer visits per day than there are people who claim to be a member. To put it another way, if each member of the group would visit the site just once a day, it would nearly double its current daily traffic average.

The group then set up this site, with the easy-to-remember(!) URL "episcopalmajorityonline.org," but a notice at the top of that site says it's been out of commission since November 4th.

Back at the original site, traffic has dropped almost 50% since its launch. A check of its SiteMeter statistics tonight shows a daily average of only 173, and glances at its monthly1 and yearly2 trends show a steadily declining number of visits (that spike on November 20th neatly corresponds with our entry from that day linking their letter to Archbishop Williams objecting to APO).

Then theres this:
Asked why The Episcopal Majority movement did not channel itself into the pre-existing Via Media group, which has chapters in 12 dioceses, Fr. Fly acknowledged that the two bodies both aim to support TEC, and that Episcopal Majority was receiving some backing from Via Media, whose facilitator, Christopher Wilkins, was at the Washington meeting. But he said that TEM is trying to deal with broader issues confronting the church, and will also attempt to build some international coalitions; some at the D.C. meeting specifically called for the new group to reach out to likeminded Anglican provinces around the world.

It astounds me that between Integrity, Oasis, Via Media, Claiming the Blessing, EVN, and the many other such organizations on the Episcopal left, it can't find one whose mission includes the "broader issues" Fly says the group wants to address.

And this:
Interestingly, it appeared from a report of the communications workshop that the name Episcopal Majority may not stick, as some participants thought it may be too reminiscent of the Moral Majority or Silent Majority. And at least a few attendees apparently wondered how TEM could confirm that it indeed represents "the majority for the mainstream."

Indeed. In fact, the "dark side" has been wondering the same thing for a couple of months now.

And finally there's this:
The latter objective is noteworthy, in light of signs at General Convention that TEC, if excluded from the Communion, may be poised to become the nucleus of a rival communion that might include others in the minority of liberal Anglican provinces, such as Brazil and Southern Africa. TEC itself includes 15 other countries besides the U.S., it was stressed at the convention.

Let me see if I have this straight: "Most in the workshop agreed that it would not be such a "bad thing" to "walk apart" from the Communion - if they were not placed in that position against their free will." But Bishop Jon Bruno, commenting on whether or not Katharine Schori will get an invitation to Dar es Salaam in February, proclaims that she "better damn well have a seat at that table." But if it happens that she doesn't get that invitation, who do you think will be the first to declare that a seat at the table isn't required to be in the communion anyway, and that the archbishop has no authority to exclude her in the first place?

If there's anything keeping Coats, Fly, Russell, Kaeton, and the rest of the usual suspects up at night, I'm guessing it's their fear that the turnout in Washington, and the interest in the "Episcopal Majority" web site, is an indication of what the turnout for a "rival communion" might look like.


1 In case TEM's SiteMeter disappears, here's the monthly report...
2 ... and here's the yearly report.
Comments:

“… (episcopalmajorityonline.org ), which Fly said got 7,000 hits in the first three weeks, and had had 30,000 as of November 3..... “

Now I’ve popped in there a number of times to check it out or to read a posting and comments.  I imagine there are another few hundred, perhaps even a thousan of the enemy who like me wanted to learn something abotehir “worthy opponents”.  That adds up to a singificant nummber of thse visits.  I’m sure that Greg’s ‘visited’ there himself a few udred times. 
Way to go, Greg! 
DO

wink wink grin

[1] Posted by Bill C on 11-30-2006 at 07:21 AM • top

udred = hundred (it’s old Saxon like Etherudred or King Alfrudred)

red face

[2] Posted by Bill C on 11-30-2006 at 07:23 AM • top

I think they should change their name to Fred.

the snarkster

[3] Posted by the snarkster on 11-30-2006 at 12:18 PM • top

They could always translate it into Russian where it would become the “Episcopal Bolsheviks”. Then they could issue their “Bolshevik Manifestos” to their hearts content.

[4] Posted by Stefano on 11-30-2006 at 02:30 PM • top

Snarkster,
Let’s not denigrate a perfectly fine name like Fred. I think they should change their name to Furd.

[5] Posted by Anglican Paplist on 11-30-2006 at 03:34 PM • top

AP: Is that a reference to Furd Burffle from the old Laugh In TV show? I remember it well. Mark and Sparkle Farkle and their best friend Furd Burffle.

the snarkster

[6] Posted by the snarkster on 11-30-2006 at 03:50 PM • top

Snarkster,
Absolutely, my friend. A mind like a steel trap.

[7] Posted by Anglican Paplist on 11-30-2006 at 03:52 PM • top

I just can’t understand why they felt the need to come up with a creepy name for the open letter group, “The Consultation”.  It sounds like something that Dan Brown would come up with.

[8] Posted by pendennis88 on 11-30-2006 at 04:36 PM • top

They could always just call themselves the Episcopal Bolsheviks.  Technically, it means the same thing but the association is truer to their ideals.

[9] Posted by albert m. on 11-30-2006 at 08:16 PM • top

Do we dare suppose that they might actually be honest enough, probably by accident, to simply call themselves “The Episcopal Minority”? It is beyond hope that they might change it to “The Loon Left Majority” or “The Heretic Majority” or “The Apostate Majority”. Maybe “The Episcopagan Majority”?

cannyscot LOL

[10] Posted by cannyscot on 11-30-2006 at 11:53 PM • top

cannyscot,

I was going to suggest “The Minority Majority,” but that’s not nearly as funny as any of yours.

[11] Posted by Greg Griffith on 12-01-2006 at 12:00 AM • top

I don’t know, Greg, thats an appropriate, and funny, one, too.

cannyscot LOL

[12] Posted by cannyscot on 12-01-2006 at 12:05 AM • top

Stefano, Albert M., we shouldn’t insult the Bolsheviks. They, at least, were honest atheists, not closet ones wearing false colours.

cannyscot

[13] Posted by cannyscot on 12-01-2006 at 12:09 AM • top

Greg, I had to delete a few other possibilities. They were appropriate, and very funny, but they would violate Matthew 5:43-45. Have to mind my manners and not let my Scottish ancestry get up too far.

cannyscot tongue wink

[14] Posted by cannyscot on 12-01-2006 at 12:20 AM • top

How about the Episcopal Rump?  grin

[15] Posted by st. anonymous on 12-01-2006 at 11:30 AM • top

The Condescending Minority

[16] Posted by paddy on 12-01-2006 at 11:37 AM • top

Re: 7000 hits, that’s assuming they didn’s start out with an artificial number in the hit counter to begin with.  I’ve created websites where you could get creative with the hit counter and also downloaded hit counters that allowed the option of starting at any number you want.


So! When we factor out the member’s own hits (out of loyalty), our hits (out of curiosity) and a possible artificially created starting point, we’re left with what, maybe 3 actual visitors in three weeks?

[17] Posted by loonpond on 12-02-2006 at 04:35 PM • top

Name change?  How about the Anglican Minority?

[18] Posted by Tonyonalatophehopestosell on 12-02-2006 at 04:57 PM • top

All the passion in the world can’t fool all the people all the time.  In fact, many people actually want to know the facts, and make a judgment based on them.  This is where TEC radicals inevitably fall down.  Their thinking simply isn’t backed up by good data.

[19] Posted by Alice Linsley on 03-12-2007 at 04:27 PM • top

What an amusing alphabet soup of organizations - and the members are probably all the same.

[20] Posted by oscewicee on 03-12-2007 at 04:43 PM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.