Survey of UCC ministers

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
According to this there are 3016 UCCan congregations,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Canada

and so, doing the math - Gretta's congregation (which I presume most members and adherents who attend identify as atheist) is only .00033 of the total number of congregations of the whole UCCan anyway. The rest of the 5% are scattered in various congregations across Canada. The majority of atheists in the UCCan are not even attending her congregation. Is their belief system because of her? I doubt it. Does the survey clearly identify what each respondent means when they define themsves as atheist? Or, are they showing solidarity with Gretta by appropriating the word atheist, the way she did when she decided to use the label to side with people who were persecuted for being atheist? She may be closer to an agnostic who feels that actions matter more than labels - and is adopting the label of atheist as a sort of protest - it seems that way to me. But doing that she includes the "spiritual but not religious" as a group within a group. She's not going to convince me that more people think like her than don't. I don't agree with some of her assertions. At the same time, her faith perspective is also valid.
 
paradox3 said:
@Mrs.Anteater
I would argue that the "God" definition is 95% compatible, based on the survey results we are meant to be discussing on this thread. Only 5% of respondents identified as atheists.
Click to expand...

If 80 or 95% doesn't really matter as it still is the majority. So no arguement there. However, this is out of 1300 something clergy. I am wondering what percentage those would be out of all UCC clergy ( including retired ones).
And most interesting would be the number of UCC members in favour of a congregation like Grettas. But, of course, that number is impossible to find out.
 
Kimmio said:
According to this there are 3016 UCCan congregations,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Canada

and so, doing the math - Gretta's congregation (which I presume most members and adherents who attend identify as atheist) is only .00033 of the total number of congregations of the whole UCCan anyway. The rest of the 5% are scattered in various congregations across Canada. The majority of atheists in the UCCan are not even attending her congregation. Is their belief system because of her? I doubt it. Does the survey clearly identify what each respondent means when they define themsves as atheist? Or, are they showing solidarity with Gretta by appropriating the word atheist, the way she did when she decided to use the label to side with people who were persecuted for being atheist? She may be closer to an agnostic who feels that actions matter more than labels - and is adopting the label of atheist as a sort of protest - it seems that way to me. But doing that she includes the "spiritual but not religious" as a group within a group. She's not going to convince me that more people think like her than don't. I don't agree with some of her assertions. At the same time, her faith perspective is also valid.
Click to expand...

Kimmio, my understanding is that the survey was among clergy only, not congregations.
 
Imagine those clergy leading congregations ... in the belief in things considered to be ethereal or ghostlike? Could a mere mortal shoot wholes in*carnate things like that ... appearing as isn't? Such is the manifest argument as it appears ...
 
So only 5% of clergy among 3016 congregations said they are atheist. Gretta is clergy in .00033 of the total number of congregations (1/3016).

Does it have anything to do with how respondents are defining or deciding to check the ""atheist" box (I.e. Is it because there is room for grey in the survey definition the same way there is in determining whether a clergy person agrees with UCCan's statement of faith? Is it because they felt moved to side with Gretta? Is it that they are hard and fast dictionary definition atheists? Do we know?
 
Maybe it's not Gretta but Richard who can bring this discussion into the congregations. Because while it is interesting what the clergy think- the " consumers" at the end are the members in the congregations who will pick the clergy to their liking. It would be nice to make them think. However, I am not holding my breath- because in my experience only a small percentage of people in a congregation are actually interested in talking about what they believe ( my hunch is about 5% of the active membership).

I also would think that the present generation of members ( average 65 and up) want a minister who tells them a good message about God and most of all treats them positively and with personal attention. I am quiet sure they would not want a minister who has more questions than answers. Or a complicated theology. Or wants them to engange into more than what they feel they can offer at their age.
The Majority of people that might be interested in something Gretta has to offer are not in church. Therefore, can't be surveyed.
 
Mrs.Anteater said:
I also would think that the present generation of members ( average 65 and up) want a minister who tells them a good message about God and most of all treats them positively and with personal attention. I am quiet sure they would not want a minister who has more questions than answers. Or a complicated theology. Or wants them to engange into more than what they feel they can offer at their age.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that.

I went to First St. Andrews here in London which wasn't the most youthful of congregations and they were pretty much in the forefront of progressive Christianity here. Perhaps not as extreme as West Hill but bringing in speakers like Borg, Crossan, and Spong and running programs like Living the Questions. They hosted a CCPC conference a few years back, too.

Wesley-Knox is quite progressive, too, though they skew a bit younger. They have also hosted a number of progressive Christian speakers and programs.

Now, I doubt either of these would go as far as Vosper, but they certainly show an appetite for discussing and dealing with questions of faith.
 
Mrs.Anteater said:
If 80 or 95% doesn't really matter as it still is the majority. So no arguement there. However, this is out of 1300 something clergy. I am wondering what percentage those would be out of all UCC clergy ( including retired ones).
And most interesting would be the number of UCC members in favour of a congregation like Grettas. But, of course, that number is impossible to find out.
Click to expand...

Hi, Mrs. Anteater... let's see if I can help out with some numbers.

This survey was only for ministry personnel in The United Church of Canada. (To try and go to the congregations would take a lot more than I have... including time and money!)

From The United Church of Canada 2014 Yearbook & Directory (Vol 2), we know that:
- the total number of Ministry Personnel was 4,312;
- the total number of Minister Personnel (Lay or Ordered) serving pastoral charges ("active") was 1,875.

There were (after removing "corrupted" data) 1,353 surveys completed - 31.4% of all ministry personnel,
of that 1044 were completed by active ministry personnel - 55.7% of that group.

The percentages being quoted are only of the active ministry personnel. You can see the results of the other group on pp.11-12 of the report.

Hope that helps!
 
Kimmio said:
So only 5% of clergy among 3016 congregations said they are atheist. Gretta is clergy in .00033 of the total number of congregations (1/3016).

Does it have anything to do with how respondents are defining or deciding to check the ""atheist" box (I.e. Is it because there is room for grey in the survey definition the same way there is in determining whether a clergy person agrees with UCCan's statement of faith? Is it because they felt moved to side with Gretta? Is it that they are hard and fast dictionary definition atheists? Do we know?
Click to expand...

Kimmio - I didn't use the words "atheist" or "agnostic" (or "panentheist" or "theist", either) boxes. :)

I gave a series of statements, and asked people to choose the one closest to their understanding.

(You can find the actual questions on p. 9 of the report.) :)
 
Mrs.Anteater said:
Maybe it's not Gretta but Richard who can bring this discussion into the congregations.
Click to expand...


Working on that one. ;)

Part of it is trying to figure out the best ways to help people have discussions about things that are deeply intimate - of which religious belief/worldview/experience is one - without having them blow smoke into each others faces and just royally tick one another off.

Perhaps WC2 can give me some insight. Because you've been doing that, here, for a decade.
 
Replying to Mrs.anteater and Mendalla - (I realize that since I started my post the conversation has moved on)

In the past forty years I've attended the two most progressive congregations in this city - transfering from one to the other for personal, not theological, reasons. These churches have also sponsored or encouraged attendance at seminars and, more recently, webinairs by those people you mention: Borg, Crossan, Spong, and even Vosper. i have also worked through Living the Questions in groups on more than one occasion. I have found that maybe something like 10% of the congregation is actually interested in discussing these matters. Maybe another 20% read some of the books and are somewhat aware of the theology.

I have also done lay supply in a half dozen congregations in this area and I have found somewhat the same numbers. The majority do not delve too deeply into theology. They want a minister who is friendly and personable, who preaches love and hope, who shows an interest in them, who visits the sick and comforts the dying, who encourages their outreach in the church and community. And they don't care too much about theology - until -
a/ they start to realize that the two young women who bought the old Jones place and started attending their church and contributing not only generously with their money but also helping out at the bazaar and the drive for the food bank are lesbians, and they still accept them until they inquire about getting married in the church -- suddenly everybody is interested in theology
b/ the new minister starts a drive to purchase new non-UCC hymn books to replace the VU hymn books that each family contributed to purchasing and dedicating in memory of a family member - and then suggests that the Chair of the Board be replaced by a MAN.
c - The pastor of a different denomination down the road delivers a blistering sermon against the UCC, as well as against women wearing make-up and wearing pants - and people playing cards.
Then suddenly everybody is interested in theology.
d - They hear some woman who claims to be a UCC minister on the National on TV criticizing the Moderator for praying to God after a terrorist attack in France.
 
Last edited:
Mendalla said:
I don't know about that.

I went to First St. Andrews here in London which wasn't the most youthful of congregations and they were pretty much in the forefront of progressive Christianity here. Perhaps not as extreme as West Hill but bringing in speakers like Borg, Crossan, and Spong and running programs like Living the Questions. They hosted a CCPC conference a few years back, too.

Wesley-Knox is quite progressive, too, though they skew a bit younger. They have also hosted a number of progressive Christian speakers and programs.

Now, I doubt either of these would go as far as Vosper, but they certainly show an appetite for discussing and dealing with questions of faith.
Click to expand...

Just speaking from my personal impression. And I think there was an Observer survey a few years back. I believe there are more rural than city congregations?
No doubt, city congregations are more likely to be open to different influences.
Having lived rural for the past 18 years and observed the amalgamation of our local church congregations, the tendency was clearly back to the good old traditional worship. Our new ministers draw people by being friendly and knowing everyone by name and being familiar with their family history. Outreach and youth group has died away since we lost our younger family and youth minister, but church is full on Sunday.
The discussion of The Observer/Walruss spirituality talk that I initiated drew five people or less than 3% of the Sunday attendees.
Having been in a different Rural UCC when Wondercafe 1 stated, I can honestly say that the whole program never made it into the general knowledge of the congregation. This is rural NS. OF course, I cannot assume from this to the rest of Canada.
I am quite certain it looks differently in congregations in Halifax.
 
However, the discussion that needs to be had is - how are we handing this "church"/ " congregation" over to the next generation? Which brings up the question what the next generation needs/wants. And that should be explored by asking them.
Its like giving the family farm to the kids- and painfully watching and being aware that they might be doing stuff we do not approve of.

But- looking at rural congregations- we are already late for that. There isn't a critical mass of younger people with interest ,in the individual congregations to move it forward. There aren' t structures to support it. There aren't people in the councils that are willing to shut up and turn over the keys to the church. There are still too many people who think they know what's best. I am not even sure if Grettas comgregation would be an option , because she might be too strong a leader herself.
 
RichardBott said:
Kimmio - I didn't use the words "atheist" or "agnostic" (or "panentheist" or "theist", either) boxes. :)

I gave a series of statements, and asked people to choose the one closest to their understanding.

(You can find the actual questions on p. 9 of the report.) :)
Click to expand...
Thank you. :)

(Oh, as to another comment - we do blow a wee bit of smoke at each other here now and then, though, don't we? ;) )
 
Seeler said:
d - They hear some woman who claims to be a UCC minister on the National on TV criticizing the Moderator for praying to God after a terrorist attack in France.
Click to expand...
Yes, this was one of Gretta's more provocative moves. For sure.

In my heart of hearts, I believe that she wanted to provoke the denomination into some sort of confrontation. I can only speculate as to her reasons, but I believe this to be true.
 
paradox3 said:
Yes, this was one of Gretta's more provocative moves. For sure.

In my heart of hearts, I believe that she wanted to provoke the denomination into some sort of confrontation. I can only speculate as to her reasons, but I believe this to be true.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
No chance that it was a genuine shot across the bow at the theistic thought that had just provoked the attack on Charlie Hebdo? I actually understood exactly what she was getting at.
 
Lets face it ... most church goers don't go to get involved in the intricate philosophy of church but to appear part of something they never would question ... as the answer could be strange and frighten them!
 
BetteTheRed said:
No chance that it was a genuine shot across the bow at the theistic thought that had just provoked the attack on Charlie Hebdo? I actually understood exactly what she was getting at.
Click to expand...
I am sure neither of us is alone in how we perceive the comments that were made. But I am quite confident Gretta knew her open letter to Gary Patterson would be provocative. It has been mentioned several times in media interviews as a key part of her narrative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top