• I.D.

    Thinking Anglicans has the story that all of us in the Scottish Episcopal Church should be thinking about at the moment. One of the most important stories that concerns Episcopalians in Scotland for quite a while.

    It is to do with the recent release of figures from the last census – the one that was conducted in 2011.

    The figures are absolutely fascinating.

    Firstly, there are a lot more people who claim to think of themselves as Anglicans in Scotland than might have been expected. However, the majority, the vast majority of them don’t think of themselves as Scottish Episcopalians.

    Here are the figures:

    Church of England 66,717
    Episcopalian 21,289
    Scottish Episcopal Church 8,048
    Anglican 4,490
    Church of Ireland 2,020
    Church in Wales 453
    Total 103,017

    Now there is a lot to say and I’ll probably not say it all today.

    Firstly, notice how many people in Scotland claim to be Church of England.

    If we add together those making a claim on an identity that thinks of itself as Episcopal we get 29 337. That is less than half of those who claim to be Church of England.

    We’ve got a wee identity crisis and we need to start to think about it.

    Now, note the number of people who were actually turning up at church in the same year (drawn from the Annual Report of the Scottish Episcopal Church). This was 14 126. So about 14% of those who claim to be Anglicans in Scotland are turning up on a typical Sunday in the Scottish Episcopal Church.

    We’ve got a wee turning up problem and we need to start to think about it.

    Now, take a look at the number of people whom the church claims belong to it – again from the Annual Report. That same year we claimed that we had a membership of 34 916 whilst we had a communicant membership of 24 650.

    For a church which is in so many places primarily a Eucharistic church (that’s what we do) then we’ve got a wee faith problem and we need to start thinking about it.

    I was very keen that we discuss the church’s statistics at last year’s General Synod. We did talk about them but I’m not entirely sure we did as much with them as I had hoped we would. The Primus tried to be upbeat about them and say that you don’t learn everything about a church by its statistics and that he found things to be hopeful.

    For myself, I only partly agree with him. I think there is a lot of hope about in the Scottish Episcopal Church – far more than amongst my presbyterian friends whose church, despite being many times bigger than my own, seems to be collapsing at a local level all across the country. However, I think we can learn things from numbers and I wish these census statistics had been available at Synod. I think that reflecting creatively on the numbers is something that we need to do at every synod.

    Disappointingly we don’t have census figures that we can apportion to dioceses – if we did we could see positions of relative strength and look at where the church was doing least well at attracting people who not only ought to be connected to it but actually claim to government that they are connected.

    Here are some hunches:

    • We’ve a significant branding problem. There’s only one church of the Anglican Communion in Scotland yet even the census report (based on write in responses) has six different lines relating to us.
    • Some of the people who claim to be Church of England will make their way to the Church of Scotland and never know the difference. This infuriates Episcopalians but we should be thinking about why we are so invisible to those people.
    • The various diocesan mission schemes that are underway are not working terribly well and not likely to work terribly well. They all seem to have been devised by people who are living in an age before the internet began. None are using particularly well, the central tool that people use to drive trade, create impact, generate conversation. Until we start to get this right we are going to decline. Individual churches which opt out of this are opting out of survival.
    • We need to talk about our identity in terms relating to various levels of debate about Scotland and England. A long time ago, Canon Alice Mann (who helped us so much as a Province) said that we needed to do a lot more work on this. We’ve not done it and we are suffering from not having done it.
    • Our corporate identity (motto, visuals and name) are such that they always need explaining and are used badly. I’ve been to churches recently who have described themselves (in every font and style imaginable) as:
      • Scottish Episcopal Church
      • Scottish Episcopal Church (Anglican)
      • Scottish Episcopal Church (Anglican Communion)
      • Scottish Episcopal Church (In full communion with the Church of England)
      • A member church of the Anglican Communion and Evangelical Alliance
      • and with no denominational affiliation at all. (eg my own congregation).
    • Numbers matter hugely
    • We need to work very hard on our national profile. Bishops have a special role to play here and though they’ve been doing a lot better at being local voices in the press recently we are not really creating much Scotland-wide impact.
    • We’ve changed our corporate identity before and at least have to talk about doing so again.
    • The Mission and Ministry Board cannot focus on anything because its remit is too large. It needs to be split in two and there needs to be a rethink of which committees go with which boards. For example, maybe Communications and Mission (or even better Outreach or Evangelism) have something to do with one another.
    • Mission is a word that is so widely and inappropriately used that it now means nothing except when one is applying for a diocesan grant.

    Our identity crisis is revealed by asking people from outside the church what they think we are. “Oh, are you the Church of Richard Holloway?” say the intelligensia. (Yes, still they do).

    “Oh, aren’t you just the English Church?” say a whole bunch of others.

    Now we need to think about these things. What should our next step be?

9 responses to “More on the election”

  1. fr dougal Avatar
    fr dougal

    What arrant rot these people peddle. Can we excommunicate their adherents on grounds of un-Christian stupidity? Would “You are too stupid to be an Episcopalian” be acceptable in Canon Law?

  2. ryan Avatar

    A timely and usefully corrective post, kelvin. I’ve had run ins with CI fans who merely think that *asserting* that the ‘Christian’ Institute is honest and displays integrity is some sort of compelling argument. If you search their site for “Scottish Episcopal Church” you’ll find an equally (and characteristically) dishonest story on +David and the SEC’s purported ‘split’ on gay clergy

    At the risk of running afoul of Godwin’s law, the ‘Christian’ Institute pretending like their ugly ideological team didn’t *lose* the Section 28 debate reminds me, not in a good way, of Neo-Nazis petitioning the UN to refight the Battle of Stalingrad.

  3. Tim Avatar

    That’ll be the SEC *two* steps ahead of the CoE and assorted story-fabricating journalists, then: “not only CAN we have women bishops, we don’t actually HAVE to!”, which is at least a balanced attitude.

  4. David | Dah•veed Avatar
    David | Dah•veed

    Perhaps Father D, that would be insulting to stupid folks!

  5. MurielD Avatar
    MurielD

    The national press and television channels should be ashamed of themselves. They preferred to “headline” the fact that a woman priest failed to become the UK’s first woman bishop rather than straightaway honour the man who was duly elected.
    It was only on reading further down the news item that we learned that the Very Rev. Dr. Gregor Duncan had been duly elected.
    That was not fair to either of them.

  6. Jackie Avatar

    The Radio 4 news headline on the day was similar, and the first 3 linked articles on your link (from the Telegraph, Reuters and the Scotsman) are also similar. I must confess to having words with the radio at the time.

  7. Martin Ritchie Avatar
    Martin Ritchie

    Something I find irritating about press coverage is the way that it has portrayed Alison Peden as “bidding” or campaigning to become bishop of Glasgow. That seems to misrepresent the process and what leadership in the church is all about. I guess it’s probably impossible to convey the subtleties of episcopal leadership in a wider culture dominated by careerist politics? Any thoughts?

  8. Roddy Avatar
    Roddy

    The Christian (sic) Institute are a bunch of tw*ts. Treat them with the indifference and disdain they deserve.

  9. David | Dah•veed Avatar
    David | Dah•veed

    It is very disconcerting to come here and see an ad for Sarah Palin running down the lefthand side of the page!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • One line TV Reviews

    More a shame than shameless Shilpa to win Right in the thick of it

  • If you want to get ahead roll a hat

    I’ve been wearing a hat rather a lot recently, though the day began with the wind whipping it off my head and rolling it down Great Western Road. I rolled after it at great western speed and eventually caught up with it, thus allowing the following snippet of conversation later in the day: Diocesan Secretary:…

  • The London Rally

    There is a rally today against the Sexual Orientation Regulations. It seems to be rather an own goal to me – an obvious demonstration of why such regulations are needed. Quite a good response from the TUC about it all here. UPDATE And, whilst we are on the subject, Danny Alexander MP should be ashamed…

  • One of those weeks

    I seem to have an insanely busy week. Everyone who ever has meetings in church life seems to have been putting off having meetings for the last few weeks for obvious reasons and then they all have them together now. Still, good vestry meeting last night.