The State of the Church in 2022 Blog 4

 A non-authorized and persona reflection on the health of our churches

 In this fourth and last in this series, I want to write about TEC and its diversity and inclusiveness especially as reflected in our congregations. I hope that I can say it in a way that helps my readers understand how our desire for inclusiveness has hindered our ability to become more diverse.

Let me start by stating some basic points:

No denomination or group can reach the growing diversity and complexity of our society. So even if we say, “The Episcopal Church Welcomes You,” it is unrealistic for us to expect that everyone will feel welcome among us.

For example, the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, still the standard for most congregations, is written on a 15^th grade reading level. This clearly reflects a church that is highly educated. The New York Times is written on a 6^th grade reading level! Historically, TEC has reached college educated Anglophiles, those who love English culture including language and literature. We have also reached those who value the arts and classical music. This is called “high European culture.”

Sometimes, this identity makes us uncomfortable acknowledging our cultural prejudices. We are also often embarrassed that TEC remains almost 85% white despite years of efforts at diversity. The most diverse thing we have done in membership is planting new congregations especially among Hispanics.

We have made strides in the inclusiveness of our leadership. The greatest gains in this are gender related. First, since the 70s, the equality of women movement has seen women enter every level of leadership. Today the number of women in seminaries outnumbers men. The second area related to gender is the full inclusion of what once was identified as gay and lesbian people and now includes a growing number of other gender identities.

Sadly, despite much effort, since the middle of the last century, TEC has lost a significant number of strong African American congregations. This is also true of blue-collar congregations. I often say that I am so old that I can remember when we let members of labor unions join TEC.

All these dynamics must be seen also from the great loss of membership that TEC, like many so-called mainline denominations, has experienced. When I went to seminary in 1968, we had 3.6 million members which represented a much larger percentage of the U.S. population than now. In the last two decades, we have had an accelerated lost of half  of the numbers reported in 2000. What have these changes done to our diversity? The percentages remain about the same for the past 30 years.

These factors leave us with several important questions. For example, why is it that despite much enthusiastic talk from our leaders about our potential to now reach a wider circle of our pluralistic society, our continued decline challenges the very future of our existence?  

Further, why is it that in a time when the worldwide Anglican Communion is growing at an astounding rate, especially in Africa and Asia, TEC still has made little gains in the diversity of our membership even with people from these countries with strong and growing Anglican memberships who migrate to the U.S.?

And what about generational diversity? Why is it that despite some valent efforts of some bishops to reach leaders from younger generations, the average age of seminarians continues to move higher, now over 45?

I feel that our leaders “good intentions” to be more inclusive mask our long-standing inability to become more diverse.  Perhaps part of this is our post World War II attitude of “build it and they will come” with an emphasis primarily on land and buildings.  Bishop Payne used to point out that evangelism is the most diverse ministry that the Episcopal Church could do.  Perhaps our focus on present members and a lack of desire to reach people who are different from our Episcopal profile has created a culture of decline that we now accept as normative.

In evangelism training, we often look at those in our community that we are more likely to reach. This is sometimes called “the low hanging fruit.” In each community this may vary, but for the Episcopal Church in the United States as a whole, there is a universal answer. And that answer illustrates how our desire to be inclusive often trumps our ability to grow in diversity.

In 2000, I wrote an article for The Living Church that addressed the potential for TEC in Hispanic ministry. Since we were working on a plan to double our size, I pointed out that four proven missional strategies that if aimed at Hispanic people would allow us to double the size of TEC in 20 years.  I also pointed out several reasons why Hispanics are very receptive to TEC. Why would a Church so committed to diversity ignore this potential?

The answer came from a member of the Executive Council. He wrote me to say I was right about the potential for Hispanic ministry but that if we did this, it would be wrong. He said that once the number of Hispanic members began to equal everyone else, we would “cease to be an inclusive Church.”  I found this attitude among several of our Bishops and many of our national leaders.

It took me several years to grasp what was meant. It meant that those who had benefited from the inclusiveness of our Church feared a loss of power if we expanded our diversity. The highly educated and inclusive minded leaders might no longer be in control.  I have since realized that if you listen to the language of our leaders, you will discover that all the language about inclusiveness has become code language to protect the status quo of our current membership profile. 

What is the State of the Church in 2022? It is stuck in decline while continuing efforts at inclusiveness continue to prevent any real change toward diversity. This is true even if that diversity represents exactly the kind of people about whom Jesus seemed the most concerned, the poor, the needy, the oppressed, and the foreigner among us.