Be loving in everything you do." - I Corinthians 16:13-14
|
"Be on your guard. Stand firm in the faith. Be brave. Be strong. Be loving in everything you do." - I Corinthians 16:13-14 |
Archbishop Immanuel Kolini visited Holy Trinity Anglican Church, Jackson's AMiA-affiliated church, last week. The Clarion-Ledger had this story:
The church body had been grappling for years with whether to ordain gay priests and bless same-sex unions, but Mason said acceptance of homosexuality was only a symptom of larger problems.
"I felt they were leaving biblical moorings," said the 47-year-old Ridgeland homemaker. "They were accepting things that were not scriptural."
But she's since reconnected with her Anglican tradition through a new Jackson church whose spiritual headquarters is 8,000 miles away.
Called Holy Trinity Anglican Church, the Jackson congregation is part of the Anglican diocese of Rwanda, which has been planting churches for conservative Episcopalians in the United States. Through its organization, the Anglican Mission in America, the African diocese oversees some 80 U.S. congregations.
To its supporters, the Anglican Mission has rescued disaffected Episcopalians who feel U.S. church leaders have compromised Scripture to fit modern culture. To its critics, the organization has usurped the authority of local bishops and further fractured the 77-million member worldwide Anglican Communion.
"A major realignment of the Anglican Communion is under way," said the Rev. Tim Smith, Holy Trinity's rector.
Hey - how do you know Jan Nunley is lying? She gives a comment to a reporter:
The Episcopal Church U.S.A. has 2.4 million members, which is about 3 percent of the 77 million-member Anglican Communion.
Nunley knows this a lie, but she repeats it anyway. ECUSA hasn't had 2.4 million members in over 25 years. It's lucky if it has 1.8 million today, and even that pitiful number falls almost daily. The decrease in membership since 2000 has, in fact, been substantial, in the neighborhood of 10-12%.
One expects dishonesty from Nunley, who has made a career out of it, but Mississippi's own bishop Duncan Gray disappoints with this remark:
So the historic Anglican faith still lives in Mississippi. I am glad.
# Posted by: Prophet Micaiah at January 14, 2006 11:06 PMNo, no, PM.
These are only "people who call themselves Anglican" . . . surely you can see the difference!!!
; > )
Signed,
The Moderate [only also reasserting & orthodox]
# Posted by: Sarah at January 15, 2006 07:30 AMTo its critics, the organization has usurped the authority of local bishops and further fractured the 77-million member worldwide Anglican Communion.
Usurped the authority? What authority? Oh - you mean the authority that ECUSA has squandered and abandoned, and deems no longer relevant? Hmmm... You'd think they'd be welcome to it -- ECUSA certainly has no use for it anymore.
To its critics, the organization has usurped the authority of local bishops and further fractured the 77-million member worldwide Anglican Communion.
Usurped the authority? What authority is that? Oh - you mean the authority that ECUSA has squandered and abandoned, and deems no longer relevant? Hmmm... You'd think they'd be welcome to it -- ECUSA certainly has no use for it anymore.
The citadel of the historic Anglicanism in EC
USA has been over run and captured by the infidels. So now, get the good people out and regroup in another place like Lot and Co. then fire for effect.
"Usurped authority"???
It is the NH Diocese and ECUSA that have usurped the authority of Anglicanism!
# Posted by: MasterServer at January 15, 2006 05:08 PMSo, Greg. Care to come to New York and say all that to my face?
# Posted by: Jan Nunley at January 17, 2006 10:40 PMSo, Greg. Care to come to New York and say all that to my face?
# Posted by: Jan Nunley at January 17, 2006 10:41 PMAnd by the way, the only thing the reporter attributed to me was the comment about the AMiA--which has NEVER, EVER released an accurate accounting of its membership or parishes. The parish figures I got wrong, because I wasn't looking at the Red Book at the time. The membership numbers they got from somewhere else. Here are the latest figure from Kirk Hadaway's office. I don't think it supports your "1.8 million" or "10-12% decline" assertion, unless you have a different kind of math going on.
EPISCOPAL FAST FACTS: 2004
2003 2004
Domestic Parishes and Missions 7,220 7,200
Active Baptized Members 2,284,233 2,247,819
Net Change in Active Membership from Previous Year -35,988 -36,414
One Year % Change in Active Members -2% -2%
Five Year % Change in Active Members -2% -4%
Ten Year % Change in Active Members -6% -7%
% of Churches Growing 10%+ in Membership (past 5 years) 34% 31%
% of Churches Declining 10%+ in Membership (past 5 years) 36% 39%
Total Average Sunday Worship Attendance (ASA) 823,017 795,765
Net Change in ASA from Previous Year -23,623 -27,252
One Year % Change in ASA -3% -3%
Five Year % Change in ASA -2% -5%
Ten Year % Change in ASA -1% -4%
% of Churches with any Increase in ASA (from previous year) 34% 33%
% of Churches with any loss in ASA (from previous year) 54% 52%
% of Churches Growing 10%+ in ASA (past 5 years) 28% 24%
% of Churches Declining 10%+ in ASA (past 5 years) 43% 46%
Largest Membership 2003--St. Martin’s, Houston 7,365 7,573
Number of Congregations with 10 Members or Less 100 107
Percent of Congregations with 200 Members or Less 53% 54%
Percent of Congregations with 500 Members or More 18% 17%
Median Active Baptized Members 182 177
Largest Average Sunday Attendance (ASA)--Christ, Plano 1,975 2,072
Number of Congregations with 10 or less ASA 247 246
Percent of Congregations with ASA of 100 or less 61% 62%
Percent of Congregations with ASA of 300 or more 6% 6%
Median Average Sunday Worship Attendance 77 75
Average Pledge $1,796 $1,881
Average Pledge Five Years earlier $1,429 $1,437
Total Plate & Pledge Income $1,231,401,494 $1,247,434,367
Plate & Pledge % Change From Previous Year +2.5% +1.3%
Inflation Rate in Calendar Year +1.9% +3.3%
Total Income $2,044,377,792 $2,083,916,019
Total Expenses $2,133,772,253 $2,132,774,534
Total Investments of Congregations $3,605,393,338 $3,785,093,355
Sure thing, Jan. What are you gonna do, kick my ass?
How about this: Instead of getting all bowed up, let's just let the numbers speak for themselves. A 3.8% decrease in ASA in 2004 alone? That doesn't sound like "hasn't eroded" to me.
# Posted by: Greg at January 17, 2006 10:59 PMOh, yeah--I forgot to tell you, for what it's worth: My folks are from Louisiana and I was born in Mississippi and raised in Texas and lived there for more than thirty years. So if this throwdown of yours is some kind of red state-blue state thing--don't bother. That old dog will not even get off the porch, let alone hunt.
# Posted by: Jan Nunley at January 17, 2006 11:01 PMNo, Greg, I am not going to "kick your a**." I am a Southern lady, and I assume...you're not. But I assume you also know what "libel" is, and calling someone a liar without proof falls under that definition. If you have the strength of your convictions, you'll say that to my face in person. If not...well, you can continue as a brave and noble keyboard kommando on the Internet.
Your numbers don't hold up, btw. 3.8% is not 10-12% in any universe that I know of. And TEC did not fall below 2.4 million until 1996. (So much for 25 years.)
Have a blessed evening.
Red state/blue state thing? Ummm..... No, this is more a truth/lie thing.
2.4 million Episcopalians? Jan, please. I'm beggin' ya.
# Posted by: Greg at January 17, 2006 11:18 PMJan,
FYI, you don't know what you're talking about re libel.
3.8% refers to 2004 ALONE, Jan. Re-read my post.
And look - here's a chart of your ASA FROM YOUR OWN NUMBERS. You've lost 63,000 just since 2001. And look at that slope - that ain't just slippery, it's downright treacherous.
Finally, I don't know what difference it makes coming to New York or saying anything to your face, but FWIW I'll be in Columbus in June. We can chat then. Bring your calculator.
# Posted by: Greg at January 17, 2006 11:32 PMFigures don't lie, but liers figure. White lies, black lies, and statistics. Where the database came from and its reliability is one of the first things looked at in any research. I am not an expert on ECUSA, but I would be surprised if there is not a profound slide. One factor difficult to measure is how enthusiastic the number counted really is. I know so many who probably will never formally leave, but they will just start going to St. Starbucks on Sunday or do field trips to the green fields repleat with sand traps and heathen on Sunday morning. IMHO
# Posted by: Prophet Micaiah at January 17, 2006 11:40 PMRead the Clarion-Ledger story again. The reporter asked about the effect of the AMiA on TEC membership, not overall numbers over an infinite period of time. At only 15,500 members in 6 years--not all or even most of whom, Chuck Murphy admits in a recent online interview, were ever Episcopalians--they're not what's bringing the numbers down in TEC.
What *is* is exactly what Kirk Hadaway's and Charles Fulton's research (from 815) has always shown: We *don't do outreach and evangelism* in the growing sectors of the population, and the sectors we attract historically--white, affluent--don't have big families. Result? *Numbers go down.*
If we'd spend our energy on evangelism outside our cozy communities instead of being hooked into fighting proxy "culture wars," that might change. What about it, Greg? Do you have the guts to come to Columbus to build up God's people, rather than tear things down? I'll be there to work for Jesus, not chat. I hope you will too.
# Posted by: Jan Nunley at January 17, 2006 11:52 PMJan, you've peddled that malarkey about affluent white people not breeding in sufficient numbers for long enough. The problem is not affluent families who don't have enough children. It's not even our pitiful excuse for evangelizing. IT'S BECAUSE THE EXTREME LIBERAL WING OF THE CHURCH, LED BY PEOPLE LIKE YOU, SUSAN RUSSELL, AND FRANK GRISWOLD, HAVE SACRIFICED THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST ON THE ALTAR OF A FASHIONABLE POLITICAL AGENDA. I don't know how many times you have to stare at declining attendance figures, or parishes breaking away from 815, or new non-ECUSA Anglican plants, before you realize... low birthrates are the least of the problem.
Oh, and for you, of all people, to lecture me about fighting a "proxy culture war" - that is true gall. I'm in awe, I really am.
# Posted by: Greg at January 18, 2006 12:08 AMThe last six months of WWII, Nazi Germany reached it's peak of industrial and war productivity. Based on data given to him by his staff, A. Hitler told one of his Generals that he now new that they were on the verge of certain victory. I guess as long as everyone thinks "all is well" that is all that is important.
# Posted by: Prophet Micaiah at January 18, 2006 12:12 AM"If we'd spend our energy on evangelism..." That comment reminds me of the Decade of Evangelism, which was dead on arrival because we learned that there was no common agreement that bringing someone to Christ was necessary for their salvation. In fact, according to a Diocisian convention speaker last year, it is not.
You cannot deny the Gospel of Jesus Christ and expect the Holy Spirit to draw new members into the fold. That, not the reproductive rate of ECUSA members, is the cause for the denominations decline to a negligable portion of the American church community.
# Posted by: Barnabas at January 18, 2006 01:48 AMThe sectors we attract historically--white, affluent--don't have big families. Result? Numbers go down.
That really is priceless. There are plenty of white affluent families having kids -- they just go to Baptist and conservative Presbyterian churches which still accept God's mandate to "go forth and multiply." You want members with big families, Jan? Then preach a family-friendly gospel and stop re-inventing the bible to accomodate the very people stone-cold guaranteed not to bring kids to church (i.e., the GLBT crowd).
# Posted by: Wilson at January 18, 2006 12:16 PMMaybe that 2.4 million includes *inactive* 'members in good standing' like me who were baptized in the Episcopal church and confirmed as 12 year olds but hadn't stepped into an Episcopal Church in many years. For all I know they are still counting those who've left for AMiA the same way. There's more than one way to cook the books - ECUSA does it and Jan knows it.
# Posted by: JH at January 18, 2006 02:54 PMJan ...people are leaving the Episcopal Church in droves. When is the weak leadership of this church going to WAKE UP. Face it....The gays are running everybdoy off!!!!!!!!!
# Posted by: dave at January 18, 2006 02:54 PMWhat's with this ad hominem attack on Jan?
She REALLY IS not a bad person. Thanks to her boss she's not in a good place to be at the moment. Have some compassion!
Those of you who know me from MCJ or Titusonenine know that I'm pretty acerbic, but not toward bystanding press officers.
# Posted by: A Senior Priest at January 18, 2006 03:29 PMI would tend to agree with you Sr Priest, except for her statement(s) calling for Greg to "step outside". Doesn't sound very professional to me. Nor is her spin very adept--red states/blue states, white affluent birth rate ??? She could take lessons from her boss.
# Posted by: more martha than mary at January 18, 2006 03:42 PMFriends: just one moment if possible. We were just this morning in Bible study ruminating that the AMiA serves a very valuable purpose in our community. Will save "what" for another time, but it is a valuable addition. And neither do we feel run off by the culture wars, proxy or not. But the gut wrenching nature of your arguments here are not a Christian thing, friends. I sincerely hope 815 brings some constructive work to Columbus. And ditto for the so-called "opposition," because so far it has been skimming, not working the issues. We are called to be whole, and given good instruction on how to do that. Noise and heat are not among the instructions.
# Posted by: Terebinth at January 18, 2006 03:54 PM
What ever the numbers are, the undeniable fact is that ECUSA is becoming less and less relevant in the national Christian landscape.
The ECUSA numbers, both in terms of ASA and revenue will undoubtedly decline, though not nearly as fast as the Anglican Church of Canada. Much of the decline is due to the theologically incorrect and arrogant decisions of the clique running GC2003. The other part of the decline is the fine job the Internet does at publicizing those mistakes of the Grizz and his friends. As I tolm my bishop not long after August 5, 2003, "We orthodox may be fewer, but if you do not let us go we will bring the house down on everybody." And so we are doing, and will continue doing, until the ECUSA ruling clique BEGS -yes, BEGS- for us to go away, and to take our property with us.
# Posted by: A Senior Priest at January 18, 2006 04:39 PMTo A Senior Priest: Do you have any prediction as to when the ECUSA ruling clique will beg the orthodox to go away and take their property with them?
# Posted by: cuthbert at January 18, 2006 05:26 PMThis has to be the biggest spin that Jan has put on anything in this discussion so far . . .
"If we'd spend our energy on evangelism outside our cozy communities instead of being hooked into fighting proxy "culture wars," that might change. What about it, Greg? Do you have the guts to come to Columbus to build up God's people, rather than tear things down? I'll be there to work for Jesus, not chat. I hope you will too."
I do hope that Greg and every other orthodox person at GC06 goes there to build up God's people. Problem is that probably fewer than 5% of the folks there will actually be God's people. Most of the rest of them need to be converted into God's people before we can start building them up. Many of them will be working for the enemy just like all the officials at 815 by proclaiming a false or at least incomplete Gospel. Those we need to recognize and name for what they are -- the enemy.
If Jan is afraid that some of us orthodox folks are planning to tear anything down, she needn't worry. Grizzy, Vickie Gene, Bruno, Bennison and the rest of their ilk are doing that just fine, thank you very much -- and with Jan's support from everything I've seen.
I'd like to know how any of them plan to go to Columbus to "work for Jesus," since none of them seems to know Him at all! What Jan and the rest of them just don't get is that we are working for two different Lords. If she wants to work for Jesus, we'd be happy to introduce her to Him. But, as long as she believes the 815 drivel as much as it seems that she does, I have to question -- which Lord is she working for? It sure isn't the same Jesus I'm working for.
Greg's numbers may have been off -- depending on who is cooking them -- but ECUSA's numbers are certainly nothing to be proud of -- much less posted on "opposition" websites, regardless of the cause for the decline. Thanks for adding fuel to our fire, Jan.
# Posted by: Eddie Swain at January 18, 2006 06:12 PMWhat is unmistakable is that ECUSA's numbers are going south at an increasing rate. This is despite the assurances of the revisionistas that any losses would be more than offset by the thousands of liberals that would flock to ECUSA because of VGR. Also in spite of the vaunted 20/20 campaign that was also supposed to fill the pews.
Whether intentional or unintentional, most ECUSA parishes are carrying a lot of people on the rolls who haven't darkened the door of the church in years. When I was on the vestry of my ex-parish, we tried to purge the rolls once. The conversation went like this:
Does anyone know who this is?
Oh, that's Joe's cousin. He moved to California.
Well, can we take him off?
Oh no! Joe would be really offended.
The result was that very few people were removed from the rolls. Multiply that by thousands of parishes nationwide and you have a very substantial "ghost" membership. Add to that all the fence sitters, parishes that have already left (and are still being counted in the official numbers), and others for whom GC2006 will be the last straw and ECUSA is heading for a major membership disaster. The 2005 figures are sure to show another major decline also.
Baghdad Jan can spin this however she wants but in the end, the numbers don't lie. So, here is the score: Greg 3 Jan 0 top of the 9th.
the snarkster
# Posted by: Michael Ware at January 18, 2006 06:14 PMWith all due respect to Eddie and Michael, we're not talking about "Greg's" numbers and "Jan's" numbers - we're only talking about Jan's numbers, from which the spreadsheet and the chart were derived. What I'm saying, very simply, is that Nunley claims membership is steady, but the numbers she released a few days ago say the exact opposite - they show a steep decline that's getting steeper.
Also, there is a widely-accepted maxim among church membership experts that you can glean total membership and ASA by having only one number: Membership is about twice ASA, so you can derive either one by having the other. So by the figures that 815 released, they're showing a little under 800,000 ASA, from which we can estimate a total membership of a little under 1.6 million. That's 800,000 less than the 2.4 million Nunley claims.
Fact remains - the 2.4 million claim is just preposterous, and 815 either knows it and keeps claiming it, which makes them liars; or they're deluded to such a point as to seriously call their competence into question.
# Posted by: Greg at January 18, 2006 06:36 PMCuthbert- they'll beg us to go away when they finally wake up to the fact that they are being systematically destroyed from within. There's a host of sites like this one- Titusonenine, Virtueonline, etc. Every hard news story today has to include both points of view, giving them equal weight. This was not so in the past (when women were first ordained) when dissidents were treated as cranks. When equal time is given today in a news article to Kendall Harmon opposite Griswold, Kendall's words negate Frank's, or Jan's. This is a publicity war of attrition. The victors will be the orthodox, no doubt, because we can -and have- destroyed the credibility of the ECUSA "brand". And dumb TV shows like The Book of Daniel help, too. Who would attend a church headed by a loser like him and his sorry brood?
My own congregation, by the way, is flourishing and growing both in ASA and revenues (gross and per capita).
# Posted by: A Senior Priest at January 18, 2006 06:57 PMIt is a sad day when the church is a mission field instead of a mission to the lost world. When the enemy takes over the righteous can only regroup in another location outside the gate. If Columbus or any other city is to have Christ to build up God's people then energy should not be spent in propping up a dead system. Yes, Church members need to be born again also, and I am not talking about a splash of water on the forehead. The pure Gospel must be proclaimed with no strings, baggage, or satanic hinderances attached.
# Posted by: Prophet Micaiah at January 18, 2006 07:16 PMAmen to you all. Jesus spoke directly, succinctly and definitively to each one. Go back and read, digest and try your lives as you have witnessed above. I pray for us all.
# Posted by: Terebinth at January 18, 2006 09:02 PMJan
Would you please give us your comments on this analysis of ECUSA's figures, as I am sure you will have some explanation of the reasons behind them. The figures are not mine; they were complied by Karen B and placed on the Titusonenine site. The link is below the figures themselves.
“Growth Rate” for different groups of dioceses (%)
_________________1992-2002________2002-04
Network……………………….. 7.5 ……………………… -2.7
No-voting …………………….. 5.7 ……………………… -4.7
ECUSA ALL ………………….. 0.9 ……………………… -6.0
Yes-voting ……………………. -1.4 ……………………… -6.7
VGR consecration …………. -5.9 ……………………… -7.2
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=10931#comments
It is comment number 37.
Someone on another blog said:
"I'm embarassed to tell anyone i'm an Episcopalian anymore -- these days i tell them i'm an Anglican."
As a Baptist with friends from a wide spectrum of religious experience, i can't say i blame her in the least. These days, being identified as an Episcopalian immediately associates you with all sorts of ultra-liberal and radical evils -- yu may as well admit to being a member of the Communist Party, or a Wiccan. I suppose that plays well enough in Manhattan, but those of us with small children know the score immediately, and politely move away.
You'll just have to forgive me if i don't feel very comfortable with my kids near adults who think that the world is overpopulated, that abortion is a mother's sacred right, and that sodomy can ever be "holy". Somehow, i just can't believe that you can subscribe to all that and still have the best interests of my children at heart.
We can still be friends of course, but the safety of my kids comes before all that. I hope you aren't offended.
# Posted by: Marty at January 18, 2006 10:20 PMOne of the reasons I can't take numbers coming out of ECUSA seriously is that it's my understanding that we can't transfer our membership from our old ECUSA parish to our new AMiA one. I've been told by people who have tried that the only way to transfer our names off the rolls of our old church is to either die or transfer to another ECUSA parish. As "we're not dead yet" to quote Monty Python, we're still listed as members of a parish who says it has 600 members, but lost a lot to local AMiA parishes.
What will be very telling is the 2005 ASA numbers. When do those come out?
Ann
# Posted by: Ann McCarthy at January 19, 2006 07:29 AMAnn,
My understanding is that, if one is not transferring to another ECUSA parish, one cannot transfer one's letter. However . . . one should with all haste and urgency call one's former parish and ask the secretary to delete your name from the rolls -- not make you "inactive" but physically delete your name.
If one does not do this, rectors then deny that you are really gone.
It's just their way -- something to do with ordination or something.
; > )
# Posted by: Sarah at January 19, 2006 08:16 AMDon't know Jan, but if that is an indication of ECUSA leadership, no wonder that ship is sinking... here in the diocese of Florida about 25% have headed for the exits
.
Jan Nunley is a lesbian that refuses to give her sinful desires to Jesus and repent. So don't be suprised, friends, as the "ass kicking" comments. You cannot live a lie and not have it tear you up inside with anger as the result. That's the real tradgedy.
# Posted by: Ted the plumber at January 19, 2006 09:35 AMPlease, Ted- such language (even if it were correct, though I'm betting it's not) is terribly sinful, condemned in Scripture over and over again throughout the OT and NT and if not true qualifies as actionable under the law as libel per se.
# Posted by: A Senior Priest at January 19, 2006 11:14 AM"If you have the law, pound the law; if you have the facts, pound the facts; if you have neither, pound the opposition." Quod erat demonstratum. People, I may be misled, I may be fooled, I may be desperately mistaken about a lot of things. I trust God to judge me with mercy in the end. But I have done my level best not to lie, in this ministry or any other entrusted to me. And now I must thank all of you for the blessing you have bestowed on me, as Jesus promised us: "Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you (falsely) because of me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven. Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you." (Matthew 5:12-13)
# Posted by: Jan Nunley at January 19, 2006 12:24 PMGreg: I was not getting into a "your numbers vs her numbers" thing. The numbers speak for themself (although it is true that I would rely on your numbers rather than hers anytime). What I was saying is that I would not trust ANY numbers that came from official ECUSA sources for several reasons:
1. Most ECUSA parishes are carrying at least some (maybe a lot) "ghost" members. In most parishes, once you get on the rolls, it is almost impossible to get off as most parishes will not transfer your letter to a non-ECUSA parish or to another denomination.
2. Almost every parish that has left ECUSA since GC2003 is still counted in the official ECUSA totals.
3. ECUSA has a vested interest in keeping the figures inflated, if for no other reason than to keep it from looking like a "ship of fools".
I would agree with you that current ECUSA membership is somewhere in the 1.5 million range.
I think that it is very possible that that figure could fall below a million in the next few years as the events of GC2006/Lambeth2008 play out. The day of decision for all of us is getting closer and closer.
Jan Nunley, whatever her sexual orientation, is simply playing the role of ECUSA's Baghdad Bob, who denied to the last that American tanks were driving around Baghdad even as the world watched live broadcasts of them. She is just doing her job but I would think twice, myself, about doing any job whose proper performance made me look like a moron. And yes, I would be glad to tell her that to her face, should we ever meet.
the snarkster
# Posted by: Michael Ware at January 19, 2006 12:55 PMI join senior priest in condemning the ad hominem and possibly defamatory attack on Jan Nunley by Ted the Plumber, and I encourage Greg to delete the post.
At the same time, I am astonished by Jan Nunley's claim that she is being attacked on this blog because of Jesus, quoting Matthew's version of the beatitudes. I haven't noticed anyone attacking Jan because of her belief in Christ. What people are saying, rightly or wrongly, is that she has been untruthful or misleading about ECUSA membership and attendance figures.
And to add my own two cents about those figures, whether the accurate membership numbers are more than 2 million or less than 1.5 million, the downward trend in membership and ASA in ECUSA as a whole and in nearly every diocese paints a grim picture. The Episcopal Church as a whole has an undeniably dismal record of bringing people to Jesus Christ. Its recent innovations have plainly and obviously diminished its capacity to evangelize, because it makes the church unattractive to those who disagree with its actions (with a whole lot of Americans, that is), but also because the entirely predictable controversy that has resulted from taking such a radical step has consumed time energy and resources that might have been spent on evangelization, as well as made the church even less attractive because it is emboiled in so much controversy.
It has been clear to me since GC 2003 that the innovators in our church believe that advancing their cause is more important to evangelizing, that the damage to ECUSA's evangelical capacity (which wasn't particular robust to begin with) is a price worth paying if that is what it takes to advance the gay rights agenda. This demotion of the command of the Great Commission to a priority lower than promotion of a political cause, whether one views that cause to be a noble or an ignoble one, is profoundly disturbing to me.
ECUSA has not come to grips with this problem, and I see a distressing lack of candor from ECUSA's leadership and spokespeople about the consequences that have ensued from GC 2003.
# Posted by: Rick o.p. at January 19, 2006 01:18 PMhref="http://www.iwgonline.org/docs/baptism.html">Well, there's this for starters...
Also this [and please note I do not endorse WorldNetDaily, but compare the tone and wording of the quotes with what has been written above]
Ms Nunley, I do pray for all salvation and conversion of the staff of 815, which has to have endorsed the systematic harrassment and forcible removal of traditionalist/conservative clergy throughout many non-ACN dioceses. I will add more prayers that you receive the help I think you need for what appears to be a severe persecution complex.
# Posted by: Mary at January 19, 2006 01:29 PMSorry, this is what I was trying to do with the first link
# Posted by: Mary at January 19, 2006 01:38 PMMary,
Thanks you for posting Ms. Nunley's story about her admitted sexual attraction to other women. It wasn't libel after all, was it? Nope, Ted knows what he's talking about. And, miserable sinner that I am, I know that my besetting sins are painful for me as well. And when I hang on to them, and make them part of "who I am" they eat me alive and lead to anger, self loating etc. It's not just homosexuality but all sins that we hang on to rather than give up that lead us down this path. And that is a tradgedy for all of us who refuse to repent and come to the Lord.
# Posted by: Ted the Plu,ber at January 19, 2006 01:57 PMMary,
Thanks you for posting Ms. Nunley's story about her admitted sexual attraction to other women. It wasn't libel after all, was it? Nope, Ted knows what he's talking about. And, miserable sinner that I am, I know that my besetting sins are painful for me as well. And when I hang on to them, and make them part of "who I am" they eat me alive and lead to anger, self loating etc. It's not just homosexuality but all sins that we hang on to rather than give up that lead us down this path. And that is a tradgedy for all of us who refuse to repent and come to the Lord.
# Posted by: Ted the Plumber at January 19, 2006 01:57 PMAnn & Sarah: I tried twice to have my name purged when I left ECUSA - I was told the second time that they don't *do* that. Others have told me they were advised the same. These are different parishes. Diocesan policy maybe? I hope not.
# Posted by: JH at January 19, 2006 02:02 PMTed the Plumber: I see you have been vindicated. Obviously, you don't have to be a gay liberal revisionista to work at 815, but it apparently helps.
the snarkster
# Posted by: Michael Ware at January 19, 2006 03:31 PMJan
nice to see you back -- but you must have missed the figures which I posted above asking for your comments. I hope you can get around to commenting on them today. Thanks
MG
# Posted by: MG at January 19, 2006 03:43 PMRick, o.p. said:
Its recent innovations have plainly and obviously diminished its capacity to evangelize, because it makes the church unattractive to those who disagree with its actions (with a whole lot of Americans, that is), but also because the entirely predictable controversy that has resulted from taking such a radical step has consumed time energy and resources that might have been spent on evangelization, as well as made the church even less attractive because it is emboiled in so much controversy.
I run into this regularly - just yesterday a woman with older children asked me about the Episcopal church and said she would like to come but she was concerned over the Episcopal Church's acceptance of practicing homosexuals as priests. We spent some time in discussion but it becomes harder and harder to invite people into a parish church under ECUSA and then to try to "explain" the dismissal of the authority of scripture and the "Buy-in" to Culture over Christ. Some of us do want to evangelize but you evangelize to what end - to what are you inviting people?
From another Mary.
Jan Nunley is a person of integrity. She has never lied to me, nor have I ever found her to be deceitful.
Attacks on her credibility and character are unkind. Please consider the impression you leave when you denigrate her. Is this how we will win the Church for Christ?
# Posted by: George Conger at January 19, 2006 04:41 PMSo Jan thinks some unkind things said about her mount to "persecution?" However unfortunate some of the comments were, I'm sure if many Christians in the first few centuries would have this definition of "persecution" over having limbs severed and burned and being mauled to death by wild beasts.
Bottom line is that she's a parrot of the propaganda wing from 815. I'm sure she believes her numbers, but they're absolute BS.
She said 2.4 million when her own numbers show 2.2 million. That may be an honest mistake, but it shows the absolute denial 815 is in. Smaller parishes can go from solvency to insolvency when they lose 2 or 3 families and that's the vast majority of ECUSA parishes. Dioceses are bleeding trust funds left and right.
Given the near impossibility of removing your name from a parish role by going RC, Orthodox, AMiA, etc. using ASA numbers times the (shrinking) number of congregations will give you the clearest trend of membership.
# Posted by: Bill2 at January 19, 2006 05:08 PMI don't know Jan Nunley, but I do know that she is a child of God, loved by God, and imperfect. Public attacks, like we have above, may be common in the secular and political arenas, but a Christian blog should (must!) strive to promote Christ-like behavior. Questioning her numbers is one thing. But the personal attacks are too much.
I enjoy and benefit from reading what people have to say on Stand Firm, whether they share my viewpoint or have an opposite one. But I get very sad and offended when it sinks to what we have seen in this thread. (And this isn't the first time.) What can we do about it?
# Posted by: ac#3 at January 19, 2006 06:06 PMSeems like poor Jan has been busted big time, but after all she jumped in and tried to make a pre-emptive strike. truth can hurt. So typical.
# Posted by: Prophet Micaiah at January 19, 2006 06:09 PMRegarding how to get your name removed from the rolls of an Episcopal parish, I find it somewhat odd for people who have left ECUSA to be concerned about that.
As a concerned Episcopalian who has not left, I personally would like for the numbers to be accurate, so that the leadership of the church could not ignore the damage done by their arrogant agenda forced upon the rest of us.
But if I had determined that the Episcopal Church was a lost cause and had left, I don't know why I would be concerned about whether they claimed to have 1.8 million, or 2.3 million, or 50 million members. (Let them keep me on their rolls, and count me 20 times if they want to. I don't care.) If I found myself getting worked up over inflated membership numbers, I would have to ask myself why that upset me so.
# Posted by: ac#3 at January 19, 2006 06:17 PMac#3, if you were once a member of a certain organization, but grew so ashamed of it to the point that you had to leave -- would you honestly not care that they still counted you as a member in good standing? I think you would care, and would not want your name to be associated with that organization any longer.
# Posted by: Marty at January 19, 2006 06:57 PMThe name calling by faithful orthodox Christians on this blog alarms me. I renew my condemnation of it. It doesn't matter who Jan Nunley is attracted to. Feeling temptation is not a sin. Has she acted on temptation to sin? So have I.
This is not an endorsement of anyone's sinful behavior. If someone insists, by word or deed, that homosexual activity is not sinful, then that person is not a good witness. That person does not belong in a leadership position in a Christian church.
But as disciples of Jesus Christ, we must be His ambassadors. Many more people visit this blog than those who post here. We orthodox Christians who have remained in ECUSA have a sober and rigorous responsibility to present the Gospel message in an attractive way. It is entirely appropriate to engage people on the accuracy of what they say, to engage them on faulty theology, to engage them on the witness they present to non-Christians and to children.
But we are not winning moderate Episcopalians over to our cause by engaging in name calling. Quite the opposite. Name calling does nothing but add evidence to the infuriating charge that the orthodox wing of our church is driven by bigotry.
Well ac#3, the problem with bogus numbers is that it perpetuates the lie that the agenda being pushed isn't really all that bad for the Episcopal church. Everything is sunshine and fuzzy bunnies when it's not.
It's Enron-like. PR flaks like Jan Nunley get their butts shot off because their data is incongruous with reality. Personally do I think she should know better? Probably. But she gets paid to promote the party line. She's probably a "true believer" and not given to skeptical looks at official data. The big Grizz gives her a data sheet and she pronounces to the world that everything is a-ok with the Episcopal Church. Most of us who read the news about fleeing parishes, inhibited priests and shrinking diocesan budgets think they're smokin' some powerful crack back at HQ.
# Posted by: Bill2 at January 19, 2006 09:12 PMrick o.p.
OUCH! I stumbled on this looking for the Alabama site. You've got your hands full, here. I think I can work out with posters at Stand Firm Al differences/discussions. Does this exchange accurately reflect the vitriole surrounding ECUSA?
# Posted by: The Skeptic at January 19, 2006 09:12 PMAgain friends, in light of the above which you have written I urge you to read and digest, for an OT standard: Amos 7:7-9 (the plumb line). And for NT application of it: Mt 5:3-12 (Beatitudes). Use that standard, read over what you see written above in this very place and try (that's as in a trial friends) your words: are you humble or recalcitrant, gentle or rude, comforting, hungry for lifting up, merciful or manipulative? Peacemakers? I am sorry I cannot go on, but Jesus does. If you have a red letter version, keep your Kleenex at hand. You are arranging the deck chairs on no ship I want to have a whiff of.
# Posted by: Terebinth at January 19, 2006 10:03 PMThe Skeptic, yes, you have stumbled onto one of the small battle sites boiling in various places in ECUSA. These folks at SFIF have a strange and strong affinity for the truth and have had their beloved church stolen away by infidels. I don't think they are going to sit still and take it anymore. I know that is strange for Episcopalians to be emotional and willing to hold firmly for truth even if it harelips the Devil. I would have never believed it could happen two years ago. But the Spirit seems to be doing a new thing in His believers. Hang around and you will learn a lot. If you want peace and quiet you might try one of the gardening blogs. Cheers
# Posted by: Prophet Micaiah at January 19, 2006 10:14 PMAll of you who are feeling so sorry for Ms. Nunley, please scroll up and see that she is the one who called Greg outside. If she were bluffing, it got called. If she were not, then she should be able to handle the fallout.
# Posted by: CarolynP at January 19, 2006 10:15 PMGreg, let us know when you are opening up the Griffith Legal Defense Fund. Truth will be a defense. A defendant gets to undertake discovery and depose the other side, maybe including her employer. Any intelligent person knows what you were driving at. ECUSA member and ASA numbers are known to be padded, no one can honestly use them to make any comment about AMIA.
For all orthodox activists: Get umbrella coverage on your homeowners insurance. It runs in the range of plus or minus $150 for $1 million coverage for libel, slander, defamation, etc, defense costs covered by the insurance company. Then tell the truth without fear.
The Episcotariat is full of practiced, very smooth liars. ECUSA working theology relies on a philosophy and worldview which values deception and disdains truth.
Revisionists see deception as just another option. Truth is for the unsophisticated, at best. Schleiermacher and Kant denied knowledge of things, accepted only their appearance, Spong calls it the “relativity of all truth”. We’ve heard it many times from the pulpit -- “It’s all relative” or “Who can tell what’s right or wrong?” or “Who can say what the Bible means?”
ECUSA truth is what advances the prophetic gospel, aided by mental reservation. Marxists called it “proletarian truth”. A prosperous and growing ECUSA cannot be seen as in decline. It is possible to say “ECUSA has x members and y parishes and is not eroded” when the speaker internalizes a mental reservation such as “ECUSA will have x members and y parishes and is not eroded because it preaches a prophetic gospel.” Such a person is not “lying” because the words spoken represent the internalized mental reservation, speaking the higher truth for a noble cause.
Have AMIA and the others eaten into ECUSA? Regardless of who said what about which numbers, AMIA and continuing church clergy do not necessarily see Episcopalians as desirable future parishioners. AMIA targets the “unchurched”. Many non-ECUSA Anglican clergy see Episcopalians as “Angricans”, damaged goods too toxic for a dynamic faith community. We are seen as tithe and evangelism-resistant, too few kids, too old, conditioned to disrespect ordained leaders and catechetically unschooled. The high-value lay leaders left long ago, they’ll take the remnant but we aren’t a target market. And that is the truth!
Jan did call me out, which was kind of funny, kind of weird, but completely unexpected.
In the almost two years that this site has been online, I have rarely - perhaps never - seen a single post that has so polarized people - and that's just among the orthodox.
Good people have told me that it's about time somebody just came right out and called Nunley and 815 on their membership numbers. Other people, just as good, have been deeply disappointed in the way I did it.
Here's the honest truth: I saw the Clarion-Ledger article, read the quotes in it by Nunley and Gray, and had one of my usual, "You've GOT to be kidding me" reactions. I posted what went through my mind, obviously without stopping very long - if at all - to think about what I was actually saying or how it would be taken.
I characterized the Bishop's remarks as being deceitful, and I'm sorry I did that. I removed the remarks from the post and sent Bp. Gray a letter explaining things. I like the Bishop, personally. I believe he's a good man. I believe he wants the best for Mississippi Episcopalians. Obviously I don't agree with everything he's done and said in this crisis, and I think he's a peacetime general, not a wartime one. I have assured him privately that my theological disagreements with him don't diminish my personal affection for him, or my respect for his leadership in other aspects of his episcopacy.
As for Nunley, I posted at MCJ that it's impossible to believe that she is unaware that church membership experts from all denominations pretty much agree then in America today, you can infer a church's true membership by doubling its ASA. I added that it's equally impossible to believe that she can't multiply 800,000 times 2, and that the problem starts when she gets 2.4 million, and the rest of us get 1.6 million. I hadn't even considered that it's impossible to have your named removed from a church's roll, as several people have attested to here and at other blogs in the past couple of days.
ECUSA's membership numbers aside, its ASA numbers deserve a lot more attention. They have fallen below 800,000 in what appears to be the first time in its history. The data deserve a post all their own.
Which brings me to my next point.
Wave goodbye to the Stand Firm of old. I'll be shutting off comments on all entries in the next few hours, and Monday there will be a new, very different, and, I hope, much improved Stand Firm web site in place. The goals of this site have changed since we launched it in March 2004, and the nature of the Anglican blogosphere has also changed. There is a new urgency to our mission, and a sweeping new scale. We want to respond to both of those things.
All of the posts and comment threads will still be available through a search feature, but no new comments will be allowed here on the old system. A new system has been installed to manage the new site, which will give us some impressive new capabilities.
A lot of hard work has gone into the new site design and the mission it is intended to serve. I look forward to a new year with all of you. We have a lot to do.
# Posted by: Greg at January 20, 2006 10:44 AMGreg, you were correct in everything you said about the statistics. Your regret about some of the words you used regarding the motives of Bishop Gray and the ECUSA spokesperson highlights something that I have read recently on other sites, that frankly there is no sustainable "inside" strategy left. An orthadox Christian such as yourself is required to speak the truth and confront evil; one cannot live for an extended period in time in conflict with a church that has abandoned the Gospel. It is not only frustrating for the orthadox, but the resulting fight has the potential of alienating those who are at the beginning of their spiritual journey. It can't, and shouldnt, be sustained.
As was posted, we all need to be in a church that we can support with our tithes and offerings. Many feel they cannot do that now, because their offerings to our church help fund their Diocese, which in turn helps fund the activities of the national church apparatus. Money is fungible, therefore, no type of earmarking of funds given to a parish is effective in preventing those funds from being used to support these activities. So as has been said, those that remain ultimately find themselves at war with ourselves in internal conflict, which causes us to say things in frustration and make other mistakes.
Our frustration is because we have chosen to voluntarilly stay within a denominational structure with which we feel is no longer faithful.
# Posted by: Barnabas at January 20, 2006 12:13 PMGreg, can't waite to see the new SFIF site. Don't see how it can be improved.... As for the message, yes we can always see how we could have been better in presenting the facts, but we are fallen and not perfect. When the facts are so hard hitting, the only thing the opposition can do is attack the messenger and nit-pick his methods. Don't worry about it. As for Gray and the others, I'm sure they are good men, etc. but still they need to know that if they lie down with the dogs they will get up with flees. In an artillery barrage, you don't want to be over on the other sides location! You can get hurt. Look at Peter warming himself at the enemies' fire.... Keep up the good work and leave the results up to the Lord. Even Elijah needed a vacation after dealing with Jessebel..Cheers...
# Posted by: Prophet Micaiah at January 20, 2006 01:38 PM