One of life’s little mysteries is that the Anglican Journal is still delivered to my door for me to peruse and inwardly digest. There is an interesting number mentioned in the September edition’s editorial – I can’t point to it because it isn’t online yet. The editorial states that there are now around 325,000 people in Canada that attend an ACoC church twice or more per month; hitherto, I had only seen the 2001 figure of 658,000 quoted.
In 1961, 1.3 million people attended an ACoC church; that means the average yearly number of those exiting the ACoC is around 20,300 people. If we assume a constant number of people exiting per year, we end up with no-one left by the year 2025.
It could be argued that the rate of decline is a better measure and that might be slowing; there isn’t much reason to believe this though, since attendance was halved between 1961 and 2001 – 40 years – and halved again between 2001 and 2009 – 8 years.
A 3 point graph doesn’t prove much, but it provides some food for thought:
Update: I had an initial concern that the 325,000 ACoC attendance number was too low. It is mentioned in two articles in the September Journal – the Editorial and a “re-thinking how we do church” article. There is no mention of where the number comes from; it seems possible that it is an extrapolation of a 2007 study done in BC where enrolment was 9,200 but ASA (Average Sunday Attendance) was only 4,755. The article goes on to say “Looking through this lens on a national level….. membership drops to a shocking 325,000″. However, there is nothing that actually says how the 325,000 was arrived at.
After posting this article, I received an email with an attached document that you can view here which gives official ACoC statistics as of 2001. The ASA for all of Canada is 162,138. The actual figures for 2009 have not been published – presumably because they would be even more shocking than the 2001 numbers – but one thing is clear: the end is nigh.
47Randy
In reference to Gerry #42 – one must be careful in casting stones. The reference to bishops and priests left in the Anglican Church of Canada as remaining only for a job and pension is an unfair generalization, and a terrible insult to priests and bishops in parishes all over Canada seeking only to do the work of the gospel. It is an offensive statement and one filled with judgmentalism. If one is casting stones of this nature one must also remember that the present ANIC bishops (I’m sure coincidentally) left the ACoC with about 40 years of service and “full” pensions. I have no problem with specific arguments but I do have a problem with taking hundreds and hundreds of individuals and making a general claim that they are all there only for a job and pension. I have an intern coming with my parish for the Fall, a retired teacher – I’m sure she is not pursuing ordained ministry in the church simply for a job and pension. There are still legitimately called and spiritual men and women in the ACoC. Thank you for allowing me to express my disappointment in this particular case, as I was greatly moved to not let it slide as I do most comments on the blog
Randy:
It seems that the stone hit someone. Sorry if my comments bother you, but then I am not the one who stayed in the ACoC to help others pursue a career in a Church that has entered into apostasy. I will grant you that NOT ALL priests and Bishops are in this category in the ACoC but as Kate says, she would prefer if they would stand up and be counted AND I would add to that, stand up and be counted as standing for The Holy Bible and standing against outright apostasy such as we see openly in New west; Niagara; ottawa; Huron and Montreal and which is creeping silently through parishes and dioceses across the Province of Canada.
I do know a Bishop whom I have great respect for who has remained in the ACoC although he is retired BUT I cannot fathom why he is remaining……I must ask him the next time I see him. Maybe he is waiting for the next General Synod to see if they will turn back from the direct Fred Hiltz is steering them…..right!
Gerry and Randy – You two have had at it in the comments section on this blog before. Please don’t do it again. If you are itching to argue with each other, please take it to private email.
Kate; It is unfortunate that you seem to include me in an agreed circumstance not to paint with a broad brush. My comments, “It is my opinion that woman are not “Called to the ministry” and The last three priestesses that I spoke were adament” were mutually exclusive and is based on MY interpretation of scripture. As we all have struggled (I think) to find cause and reason for the ACoC’s unfolding decision on SSB’S. We (or should I say I) have been largely mystified at the lack of anything that resembles common sense. I feel exactly the same way about WO. I have pursued reasoning from several sources including some of our respected ANiC female priests. Unfortunately I continue to come up blank. This is particulary frustrating given our Bishop Don’s recent declaration of ANiC’s position on the matter. Unless I am convinced by my “betters”, (of which I believe are many) that my reasoning is incorrect, I sadly will sink into the same morass I found myself involved with in the ACoC. fortunately my membership in the ACNA is not as yet quite so threatened.
PS I have purposely left off any instigation of debate on WO as that would move this stream too far away.
Your comments and understanding would be appreciated.
Blessings always
#50 Margo – you said “I was surprised, shocked and left shaking in my boots at the responsibility of it all.
I mean this with all respect sister (or Reverend) if you have been ordained. Did this happen at the time of your calling or during your training/upper level degree? I would like to hear of your experiences that caused such trauma. Did they not teach you that “Love casts out fear”.
In Christ and with Love.
For Randy #47:-
The failure by the Primate and the House of Bishops to take action against the apostasy that reigns within the ACoC would definitely tend to show that the comments by Gerry #42 are legitimate. You might well find so-called “spiritual persons” but that, in itself, does not mean they are Christian. Such persons are found in all religions. However, to be an Anglican one must first be a Christian and that means accepting both the authority of Scripture and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. The actions, or more correctly the failure to take action, by the Primate or the House of Bishops against the growing apostasy as being promoted in Niagara and New Westminster can only result in the ACoC losing any and all claims to be a Christian church and reduces it to nothing more than a social club where everyone does his/her own thing. As Christians we are not called to fall in line with society and its beliefs but we are called to witness to society. That clearly cannot and will not happen if the current descent into apostasy is not checked. No Christian could possibly support the ACoC in its present state and any clergy person (bishop or otherwise) that fails to speak up and take appropriate action is obviously more concerned with job security than the truth of the Gospel.
It has been stated in previous submissions that “the gates of Hell will not prevail”. However, when a church willingly and deliberately turns from the Gospel it loses that promise. Both as a church and as individuals we are called to make a commitment.
#55 – granted I am under no illusion that the ACoC is a perfect church, nor am I aware of where to find one, anymore than I am under no illusion that there is one perfect person (only Jesus Christ himself), so I am not in any position to judge anyone; or any church that has thousands of spirit – led and faithful people attending each and every Sunday. If I am to follow the logic in post #55 they are heretics and in danger of eternal damnation unless they leave the ACoC, as God has left that church. I must object to that kind of logic, no church has the ability to save anyone, as that, to a large degree is determined by a personal relationship with our Saviour. The church can lead and instruct and teach, etc but the journey of faith is your’s and mine. I refuse to believe that God has abandoned the ACoC. Sure, God no doubt is calling the Church to accountability and repentance, as He has done for 2000 years plus. Strange that people did not leave the church when there was evidence of abuse in Residential Schools, that was known years and years ago, it took the issue of SSB’s to bring about alignment with the Southern Cone, the Network, ACNA, etc. Were there not other issues that at least were equally repugnant? If the ANIC and the ACNA can be proven to be the perfect church where there is no sin than God bless you all and may every Anglican in Canada join
Randy,
ANiC parishes did not realign because the ACoC isn’t perfect, but because a number of dioceses – and arguably the entire ACoC – have adopted a faith that is no longer Christian. Much of this is documented here.
Had the ACoC declared that the Residential School abuse was “holy” or “not contrary to core doctrine” I imagine there would have even more departures – earlier.
Randy (#56), I had sympathy for your position until you mentioned residential schools. If you are going to use a strawman argument, you could do much better. I don’t doubt that people did leave the ACoC over the abuse in the residential schools, but so what? If there was logical rigour in your argument, you would presumably claim that one should at least consider the possibility that the abusers may have been acting in accordance with Scripture and the leading of the Holy Spirit. Since I believe this is not your position, I conclude that your argument is inconsistent. (P.S. For anyone inclined to review my previous comments, I admit up front that you will likely find inconsistencies.)
David: As far as I can see the Anglican Church of Canada has not abandoned any of the core doctrines of faith such as the creeds, the trinity, the birth, death & resurrection of Jesus. Liturgy and worship are being done all over the ACoC the same today as 25 years ago. I have not been instructed to teach or preach anything different now than when I was ordained in 1992. In addition the marriage canon of the ACoC has not been changed in any way, it recognizes marriage as a union of one man and one woman only. You will recall that at the General Synod of 2007 the motion to move forward on SSB’s was defeated. To call the church “unchristian” is more than anyone is able to proclaim, for that would classify all those still part of the ACoC as unchristian also, both bishops, priests, deacons and lay people. For what its worth neither I nor the diocese I am in has any intention of proceeding with the blessing of SSB’s, its not where we are. We are more focused on the work of the gospel. But because I happen to be a member of the ACoC, according to the logic of some, I am now “unchristian”. I think this is dangerous territory for anyone to stray into. I would be very interested in knowing what the ANIC bishops, such as bishop Harvey, would say on this matter. Is it his/their belief now that all members of the ACoC are unchristian? Perhaps someone could let me know? As well, because the Church of England and others still see the ACoC as the official church of this country does that mean also that it too is unchristian? One must follow logic to its fullest. Incidentally, I am told that unofficially the CoE has been doing SSB’s long before there was ever one done in Canada, even before New Westminster.
Randy,
I said “a number of dioceses – and arguably the entire ACoC – have adopted a faith that is no longer Christian, not that no individual in the ACoC is a Christian.
Some dioceses are worse than others: Michael Ingham in “Mansions of the Spirit” denied the uniqueness of Christ; I was at a talk where Fred Hiltz was unable to clearly articulate what the gospel is; Andrew Hutchison denied that the Bible is the word of God; Michael Bird in a parish meeting refused to state what he personally believes; in a local Niagara clericus meeting only one Anglican priest said he actually believed the entire Nicene Creed – and he is now in ANiC. I could go on and on. What do you think the percentage of unbelieving leaders in the ACoC has to be before it ceases to be a Christian entity?
I suppose you might argue that so long as the ACoC has not officially denied any of the essential doctrines, what the leaders believe doesn’t matter; a bit like having butchers run a vegetarian society or oil executives stand for the Green Party. The sham can only last so long, though.
Incidentally, your statement “neither I nor the diocese I am in has any intention of proceeding with the blessing of SSB’s, its not where we are.” implies that proceeding with SSB might be where you will be at some point even though you are not there now; is that what you meant?
Randy, in #59 you say,
I disagree. Unless you can persuade me from God’s Word that a man-made institution such as the ACoC is synonymous with the body of Christ, this argument is also a strawman. For this statement to be logically consistent, an necessary test of whether or not one is “christian” (by which I assume you mean regenerate) would be the church one is affiliated with. Based on other comments you have made, I find it hard to believe that this is your real position. For me, Article XI is sufficient (even though I find it hard, in my flesh, to not judge those who choose to sit – for an extended period of time – under the preaching of someone who does not believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture and who distorts it to make it compatible with worldly values).
Does the ACoC still bear the marks of a true church? I think it is reasonable to look to the 19th Article as a starting point.
I understand that you likely have no interest in interacting with me, and take no offence.
#60 – Thank you David: You will note that my words were “Its not where we are” , I did not say “Its not where we are now”. So, it would be wrong to imply that this is just an expression of the present. Just wanted to clarify that. Thanks.
For Randy #62
It is obvious that the many postings including yours are in response to mine #55. You have stated that God has not abandoned His church and that is true. It is also true that the ACoC has abandoned God as evidenced by the actions of the Dioceses of New Westminster and Niagara which are further exasperated by the failure of the Primate or the House of Bishops to take effective action to correct the matter. The fact that God has not abandoned his church is proven by the formation of the ANiC and the Anglican Church in North America. You have stated that the ABC recognizes only the ACoC and that might well be the case and could be a result of wanting to be politically correct. However, to be a true Anglican one must first be a Christian and accept both the authority of Scripture and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and the facts would tend to prove the ACoC is indeed losing any and all claims to be truly Anglican. You have stated your diocese is not, at least up to the present time, prepared to be involved in SSB’s – a misnomer in itself as such “blessings” are impossible regardless of the liturgy or the person(s) performing same – but I would ask what are you and your bishop doing to counter this fatal disease or are you simply prepared to sit on the fence and continue to allow the church to fall into the abyss of apostasy and irrelevance.