The Anglican Journal welcomes letters to the editor. Preference is given to letters under 100 words. All letters are subject to editing for length, grammar and clarity. Please include a mailing address.
Gary Nicolosi’s article graphically describes the drop in Anglican membership in Canada and the U.S.However, his percentage decreases in membership don’t “add up” or down. The decrease in Canadian membership from 1961 to 2001 is 642,000 which is a 49 per cent decrease, not 53 per cent as reported. Also, he reports the decrease in American membership as 1,300,000 from 1965 to 2007, which is a 37 per cent decrease, not the 55 per cent published in the article. Hey, it’s okay with me. I don’t think St. Peter will be giving us a math exam.Peter Malcolm
VictoriaRev. Nicolosi responds….The membership of the U.S. Episcopal Church has decreased from 3.5 million (1965) to 2.2 million (2008) so the percentage decrease would be about 38 per cent, not 55 per cent as we reported. In regard to the Canadian church figures, a 2005 report presented to the House of Bishops (Anglican Journal, Dec. 2005,
p. 13; and The Living Church, Jan. 15, 2005, p. 12) indicated that the enrollment losses for the Anglican Church of Canada were 53 per cent in 2005; this figure is probably closer to 57 per cent today.
Rebuilding an active Anglican church in Canada requires reaching out to young parents.Ministers should ask, “How can we help you?” instead of declaring, “You must help God by attending Sunday church.” Dropping off children for kid-active Bible school on Saturday afternoon would allow working parents to get the chores done while children learn to bake cookies and set up the church hall for Sunday fellowship. A small donation could cover the wages of someone qualified to provide child care. Or why not launch a nationwide appeal to support church daycare? What’s in it for the church? Improved attendance at church-organized community events. Slowly, church attendance will improve as families mature, learning to play together and pray together.J. Neilson
Petawawa, Ont.
It’s hard to know exactly why [Canon] Harold Munn’s article made us so angry (Let’s talk about sex, Sept. 2009). We share his position on the issue of same-sex blessings. We also share his desire to remain in communion with those who don’t and find his story of unlikely friendship endearing.Perhaps it’s because his “two straight guys talking about same-sex blessings” falls into the same category as “two white guys talking about reconciliation with First Nations people” and “two men talk about the ordination of women.” Perhaps it’s because, after a few meetings, Canon Munn and his colleague found there was little left to say. We don’t have that luxury and neither do clergy in same-sex relationships in the diocese of British Columbia (Canon Munn’s home). We long for the day we don’t have to constantly defend our position on the issue of same-sex blessings.Rev. Andrew Halladay
100 Mile House, B.C.
Rev. David Taylor, Vancouver
After receiving this paper for many years, finally common sense has prevailed. We must move on. I am 70 years old, and the world has become less black and white. Same should be true of church doctrine.Nancy Knorr
Saint John, N.B.
I was about to discontinue sending even a modest contribution to what has been in my opinion a dull and “preachy” publication. But suddenly there is hope. Ministers are dancing and Jesus may have smiled. Bravo!Now if our senior clergy can only be weaned away from deciding it is chic to be bearded as heavily as 19th-century imams… there’s always hope!Barbara Whitley
Westmount, Que.