I absolutely agree with you, Charley, and I'm quite impressed you can see this so clearly in the data.
I don't know if you can quantify this, but besides the general drifting away of youth, I would suggest two changes of the 1970s are having an effect: ecumenical outreach has weakened denominational loyalty, and the Baptism-as-complete doctrine has encouraged people not to even wait around for Confirmation.
Anecdotally from a view from a splinter group, people are not quitting TEC because of something General Convention did last month; it more often coincides with a change in rector or significant change in a parish. Denominational loyalty has been weakened to the point where people, when they go, are more likely to go elsewhere. But I do think most of the leavers have already left and are just now showing up in the statistics.
On a related topic, I don't think defunct parishes are deliberately being counted to inflate the numbers. I think the counting rules say if you don't have a report you use the last one you have, within perhaps three years. In chaotic situations the paperwork doesn't always get done.
John, I'd say that reporting old numbers about a church in which no priest of the diocese has celebrated a liturgy in five years is deliberate. In the three examples I know of, this is exactly the case. Situations in which there are disputes resulting in parallel congregations get reported clearly as abrupt drops in the numbers. One could perhaps consider it a loophole that a non-functional parish could be reported on old numbers because, being non-functional, it doesn't produce any reports; but that's plainly a loophole, not an appropriate response. If you know that no services are being held, you report zero; you can find cases of this in the data if you look around enough, so I don't think Kirk Hadaway is telling people to fill out the forms this way.
I agree with you, BTW, about the reasons for departure, with the added comments that people who leave in a bloc can manage to talk themselves into leaving over something that happened somewhere else, particularly if they are led that way by a cleric. Way too many people discussing the current presenting issue (Benedict's prelature offer) don't understand that most Episcopalians don't read the religion pages to see whether or not they should show up at church on Sunday.
Denominational loyalty is, I think, governed by access. In the thick-with-churches mid-Atlantic, I do think a lot of people move from parish to parish within the denomination if they have problems with the one they're in. That certainly happened to me. When it gets harder to find an alternative (either because there isn't one, or because the alternatives are unacceptable (often because the same problems obtain)), then brand loyalty crumbles. I think it has always been the case that Episcopalians tend to stay so because it (meaning their parish) suits them; the Ortho/Catholic obligation to the brand is very rare.
Charley, I will concede that there is some dishonesty about reporting for parishes that aren't really there any more. Sometimes reports just don't get filed on time; two overseas dioceses on the 2008 list have asterisks saying no report, but it's probably rare among domestic churches. The Los Angeles diocese has continued to use old numbers as part of their legal strategy to pretend the churches never left; now that the strategy is successful, one would expect correct reports at least by 2010. On the other hand, it's important to show the departing dioceses as departed, in order to justify their reconstitution. I'm not sure what other flagrant reporting problems you refer to; you are more up on it than I am.
I am surprised at all the brouhaha over the personal ordinariates (other than that that is a fine new word.) I think they're directed to +Hepworth and the Traditional Anglican Communion in Australia, who have been asking for exactly this. I don't think there will be many US or UK takers.
Commenting by HaloScan
