Survey of UCC ministers

[Seeler]

Chansen said: "So what? So you'd be an atheist to a fundamentalist."

I don't know about Richard, but I'm quite sure that there a few people here on WC, as well as a few people in real life, that would consider me an atheist.

I am also quite sure that most people who self-identify as atheists would not consider me an atheist.

And I would feel very uncomfortable in either group.

 

[Luce NDs]

Is passion comfortable everywhere ... causing great dissonance to people loving piece in quiet?

Such in metaphysical turmoil ... or Terre Moil as Walter Brenan passes with Midnight ... that mule ole'r I'vers and meis ... the darkness withheld in lyric as yet unseen?

Poly dimensional word as scattered souls see it from varied perspectives ...

 

[revsdd]

So what? So you'd be an atheist to a fundamentalist. You'd be in Gretta's shoes in another denomination. Gretta's 50% looks downright conservative if judged through the lens of a more fundamentalist denomination, which almost every other denomination is.

I might actually choose the UUs over a fundamentalist denomination as well if the United Church either ceased to exist or chose to reject its Christian identity, but that wouldn't make me an atheist or even an agnostic. If I made that choice it would be largely based on what Mendalla has described here on WC2 which seems to suggest that there's a place for a person to identify as a Christian UU or a UU Christian. I might be inclined to check that out over a fundamentalist/hard core right wing denomination, although I'd be more likely to find a more moderate mainline denomination to fit into. And seeler raises a good point above. While there are certainly Christians at one end of the spectrum who might consider United Church people to be atheists or agnostics, I think most atheists and agnostics would disagree with that assessment and consider us hopeless Christians. In fact, folks such as you and Pavlos Maros make that very clear.

I find your position on this fascinating. Because the conservative wing of Christianity "mocks" the United Church you seem to think that we should just allow ourselves to be tagged as "un-Christian"; that we should just accept the judgements of hard core Christianity and not to identify as Christian anymore. I think that's a foolish position for you to take, and what a pathetically weak response that would be from the United Church. As Richard has said above, I think there's a very wide niche on the more "liberal" side of the Christian spectrum. I also think it's ridiculous for anyone (including the United Church of Canada) to allow themselves to be defined by anyone other than themselves. The United Church of Canada is a Christian church. It identifies as such and I suspect it will remain that way. If it doesn't remain that way then I and many, many others (in fact, I would suspect the vast majority of us) would have no place in it and no desire to be in it.

 

[paradox3]

You are one step up from UUs. Like it or not, that's your market niche. That's your brand.

Okay, I can live with that. I spent some time exploring Unitarianism several years ago and It could be an option for me if I ever decide to bail on the United Church.

 

[chansen]

I might actually choose the UUs over a fundamentalist denomination as well if the United Church either ceased to exist or chose to reject its Christian identity, but that wouldn't make me an atheist or even an agnostic. If I made that choice it would be largely based on what Mendalla has described here on WC2 which seems to suggest that there's a place for a person to identify as a Christian UU or a UU Christian. I might be inclined to check that out over a fundamentalist/hard core right wing denomination, although I'd be more likely to find a more moderate mainline denomination to fit into. And seeler raises a good point above. While there are certainly Christians at one end of the spectrum who might consider United Church people to be atheists or agnostics, I think most atheists and agnostics would disagree with that assessment and consider us hopeless Christians. In fact, folks such as you and Pavlos Maros make that very clear.

I find your position on this fascinating. Because the conservative wing of Christianity "mocks" the United Church you seem to think that we should just allow ourselves to be tagged as "un-Christian"; that we should just accept the judgements of hard core Christianity and not to identify as Christian anymore. I think that's a foolish position for you to take, and what a pathetically weak response that would be from the United Church.

But that's not the position I'm taking. I'm saying you shouldn't give a damn what the hardcore Christians think. You wrote earlier that the "effect" Gretta was having on UCCan members outside her congregation was that other denominations in town viewed the local UCCan as though they were somehow similar to West Hill. I've never said you should accept that judgement, and I think it's pretty obvious that I would never tell anyone to just accept judgment from a hardcore Christian.

As for pathetically weak UCCan responses....that's what they do, if they offer a response at all. You're not a denomination known for cracking down or taking a stand on anything. You're nice. You waited years to get around to proceeding with something against Rev. Vosper, when she would have been out of any other church more than a decade ago. You let her gain some traction with the group that remained, and you let her gain a small cheering section within the UCCan. And now that there is connection and community, now the conference chooses to act to possibly break up that connection and community. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

As Richard has said above, I think there's a very wide niche on the more "liberal" side of the Christian spectrum. I also think it's ridiculous for anyone (including the United Church of Canada) to allow themselves to be defined by anyone other than themselves. The United Church of Canada is a Christian church. It identifies as such and I suspect it will remain that way. If it doesn't remain that way then I and many, many others (in fact, I would suspect the vast majority of us) would have no place in it and no desire to be in it.

Great. Remain a Christian church.

Why isn't the UCCan reaching out to Gretta for some sort of compromise? Why aren't they asking her to cover the bible a little more...maybe cover off some sacraments from time to time. Why did nobody reach out to talk to her, before initiating a review?

To me, that's how you handle things. You open a dialogue and try to reach an agreement. You do not just initiate a formal process that will possibly dump good people who may not be doing things the way you like, but are still doing good work. You try to come up with solutions. No one tried that here. No one even tried to understand. They are reacting to the word "atheist" like it's a peanut allergy, while it's obvious that UCCan types are perfectly content that maybe 5% or more of their other ministers don't believe (which they ignorantly refuse to equate with atheism).

 

[Mendalla]

I might actually choose the UUs over a fundamentalist denomination as well if the United Church either ceased to exist or chose to reject its Christian identity, but that wouldn't make me an atheist or even an agnostic.

And it wouldn't have to. That's what makes UU different. Our principles define how we live and work in community, not metaphysics. We believe that treating each other with respect, being democratic, pursuing justice, and so on are more important than who believes in God and who doesn't. That's the theory at least. I've seen evidence in some humanist-theist battles over the years that that is not always the case in practice but I, at least, would argue that's UU'ism done wrong.

And what @revsdd describes is one of our "brand" issues, really. A lot of people on the liberal end of the spectrum use us as a "safe harbour" or "church of last resort" when leaving another church, but don't stay for the long haul. We're a stopping ground until they find something else that's a better fit.

That said, there is always be welcome if someone wants to give us a try. Just do a bit of research first and if you are looking at UU and have the option of trying multiple UU churches before settling on one, do. We vary a lot in worship style, mix of beliefs, etc.

 

[Pinga]

My nephew raised questions about the survey, and the way it was run. I get his concern, I also get that some of them are not as relevant in this denomination.

@RichardBott couple of questions he raised.
1. given a survey has an IP address associated with the results which typically the owner of the survey can see, and that an IP address can be used to get back to an address, and therefore a human, do you have any sense that the risk of anonymity stopped your most gretta-like respondents from filling it in or anyone else?
2. . What stopped someone who isn't a minister from filling it in and breaking your results.
3. Do you feel that it was you rather than some independent third party doing the survey influenced the results

He had other questions/concrns as well.

I'd be interested in your responses. I had a lengthy exchange with him last night on facebook..trying to outline UCCan, the history of this one, etc..but, didn't really work well.

 

[RichardBott]

It goes to show that anyone can be an atheist in this discussion, and that maybe a group used to being mocked for lack of faith and literally contains 5% atheist clergy and likely at least that proportion in the pews, wouldn't get so worked up over it. But more importantly, what of that 5%? What now? Do they get weeded out? What happens to the non-believers in your congregations? What of the young people who don't believe? Who can't believe? I mean, removing Gretta makes you like any other church. That's hardly a worthy goal these days.

Chansen, participants in the life of the United Church of Canada aren't required to believe in God. They will, however, hear God stuff from most of the congregation's teachers and preachers.

At this point, at least, for a candidate to be ordained, recognized, commissioned or admitted, they need to be in essential agreement with the doctrine of the United Church - decided upon by the committee, not the candidate. The committees that I have experienced have expected some kind of belief in God - usually some form of trinitarian articulation... but there are a while lot more committees than the ones I've experienced, so I can't be sure what all of them do.

What of the 5%? I don't know. Not my call in any Presbytery but the one I'm a part of.

If one of my colleagues told me they were atheist, I'd start by asking them to help me understand what they meant. If it was one of the 5%, I'd probably ask them to help me to understand why they wanted to continue to lead in ministry in a denomination that ostensibly teaches a belief God... because I really don't get it, and I want to.

I wouldn't mock them for their beliefs.

I would ask them if they felt that they could continue to teach about there being a God, and how they would deal with the believers in the congregation with whom they serve.

If they couldn't continue to teach about there being a God, or if they were clear with me that they weren't able to be pastorally helpful to the believing-types in their congregation, then I'd probably challenge them about their presence in a position which requires those things.

 

[RichardBott]

Pinga -

Let's see if I can respond.

1. I set it up so I didn't have access to the IP addresses, but only had a flags that data came from the same IP address. I was clear in the introduction to the survey that I would have no way (even if I had any interest) in backtracking respondents.

I have no idea if folks with "outlying" theologies held back because of it. The people I talked with said that they did.

2. Nothing. As I explained in the paper, what I was able to do was compare the demographic data with the breakdowns of ministry personnel by conference. There was nothing that suggested that the proportions of responders were out in any given conference.

3. Perhaps... though, as one colleague from the progressive part of the spectrum remarked, "Whether or not we agree, I can trust that you will treat my responses with respect." While I received feedback from folks that they weren't prepared to do the survey because of how the results might be used in the public debate, I didn't have the sense that only certain people would talk with me.

*grin*

All of these are part of the reason I was clear about the limitations of the survey, and I don't extrapolate past the bounds of the data. These results are only good for the 55% of active ministry personnel who responded to the survey.

I would design things quite differently in a future exploration. Random sampling, passkeys given to participants (like the census), etc. would be part of what I would consider.

But, when it comes to the data I have, I am reasonably certain it is accurate within the stated limitations.

 

[chansen]

If one of my colleagues told me they were atheist, I'd start by asking them to help me understand what they meant. If it was one of the 5%, I'd probably ask them to help me to understand why they wanted to continue to lead in ministry in a denomination that ostensibly teaches a belief God... because I really don't get it, and I want to.

I wouldn't mock them for their beliefs.

I would ask them if they felt that they could continue to teach about there being a God, and how they would deal with the believers in the congregation with whom they serve.

If they couldn't continue to teach about there being a God, or if they were clear with me that they weren't able to be pastorally helpful to the believing-types in their congregation, then I'd probably challenge them about their presence in a position which requires those things.

Wow. If only you were the minister at Metropolitan United. Reaching out is the sort of thing I was talking about above, and what was never done.

Where is the indignation about that? Where are the questions about process? Well, not legal process, but just common courtesy? It's not like Rev. Vosper is being accused of harming a single person, which would necessitate an immediate action and leave no room for compromise or discussion. She has come to a different conclusion. She is surrounded by people every Sunday who have arrived at a similar position, likely viewed through a Christian lens because that is their background. They are comfortable in the United Church. They advocate for their beliefs, but then, so do other churches and Cruxifusion.

And what you still haven't left room for is the possibility that someone like Rev. Vosper could, in conversation, explain to you why she should remain, in such a way that you two could find common ground.

The UCCan could work with Rev. Vosper to generate healthy discussions about faith and generate interest. You could leverage this into a positive. She is better with the media than anyone else you have. You could use her to show how people falling away from faith could still be in church and explore and do good. Instead, she is seen as a threat that needs to be removed. She was ignored for years, probably with the distant hope that she would fail or walk away. Failing that, they are now pressed into acting because she attracts too much attention. Yeah, best not to have ministers who the media wants to talk to.

 

[chansen]

My nephew raised questions about the survey, and the way it was run. I get his concern, I also get that some of them are not as relevant in this denomination.

@RichardBott couple of questions he raised.
1. given a survey has an IP address associated with the results which typically the owner of the survey can see, and that an IP address can be used to get back to an address, and therefore a human, do you have any sense that the risk of anonymity stopped your most gretta-like respondents from filling it in or anyone else?
2. . What stopped someone who isn't a minister from filling it in and breaking your results.
3. Do you feel that it was you rather than some independent third party doing the survey influenced the results

He had other questions/concrns as well.

I'd be interested in your responses. I had a lengthy exchange with him last night on facebook..trying to outline UCCan, the history of this one, etc..but, didn't really work well.

I clicked the link just to see, and I certainly could have lied about my work and filled it out. I stopped there. To think that others did not do just that is naive. It is not a scientific survey at all - it's a starting point. What I find most fascinating is the common reaction that people don't really care about non-believers in the pulpit. They care about atheists. They especially care about atheists who attract attention.

What we need to find out is what the reaction to a non-believer who attracts attention would be.

 

[RichardBott]

Chansen,

If my colleague were able to convince me of their stance, then I would lay out the process for changing the doctrine of The UCCan, and help them to put the changes they believe forward to the General Council, Presbyteries and Congregations to decide if those changes reflected an accepted belief in the UCCan.

I'd probably help them write the thing.

Because, in the end, we have processes for making decisions about what the denomination (as a body) says it believes, and requires of its ministers.

Chansen, as a UCCan polity-geek, and as someone who has sat on both sides of the oversight & discipline table - once a complaint has been made, there isn't much room for informal conversation by anyone who is part of the process. There used to be. But the church often found itself in legal proceedings that found that the informal conversations had somehow breached our polity, so those official informal conversations have almost completely stopped. With anyone.

 

[RichardBott]

Chansen - what are you defining as a"non-believer?"

 

[chansen]

Chansen, participants in the life of the United Church of Canada aren't required to believe in God. They will, however, hear God stuff from most of the congregation's teachers and preachers.

Let's explore this for a moment. Atheists are allowed to participate, but let's make sure they know that anyone who has similar views does not qualify for...what? Leadership? What about membership? Are they allowed to tithe?

The message here is that you welcome their money and their presence and their efforts, but the moment a minister comes to a similar conclusion as them - as soon as they even see that a minister in their denomination agrees with them and is someone with whom they can identify, that person has to leave.

 

[Lastpointe]

Chansen

You say no one reached out to Greta in all these years.

What do you base that assumption on? Your attendance at all her Presbytery meetings?

I know from discussions with my minister that he has an unofficial support group of a half dozen ministers. People to share concerns, issues, get feedback...... I would think that most ministers have that type of support, that they create themselves from friends in ministry. When you work in a job whee you are the only one of a certain job , in a setting, you generally look for others to discuss stuff with.


To me the issue is not that a ministers ideas change over time. Of courrse they do. From reading, living, meeting, discussions, their own life journey. They may becime less ir more orthodox, The issue for Greta is , if she no longer can attest to the Christianity in our religion, then what are you doing here? With her current vocal stated beliefs, she would not be eligable for ordination. So is she eliglble to remain ordained?

 

[Lastpointe]

Let's explore this for a moment. Atheists are allowed to participate, but let's make sure they know that anyone who has similar views does not qualify for...what? Leadership? What about membership? Are they allowed to tithe?

The message here is that you welcome their money and their presence and their efforts, but the moment a minister comes to a similar conclusion as them - as soon as they even see that a minister in their denomination agrees with them and is someone with whom they can identify, that person has to leave.

No the message is that we are a big tent, you can come, listen, learn. Perhaps have your world view challenged. You will learn from our leadership about the love of God and Jesus and how it can change your life


If you dint want God as part of your spirituality then you will find other alternatives other places, UU' Budism, Bahai.........

Many people have a desire for some spirituality in their lives. They look for a home to develop it. We are one such place

 

[chansen]

Chansen - what are you defining as a"non-believer?"

Someone who doesn't believe in God.

Chansen,

If my colleague were able to convince me of their stance, then I would lay out the process for changing the doctrine of The UCCan, and help them to put the changes they believe forward to the General Council, Presbyteries and Congregations to decide if those changes reflected an accepted belief in the UCCan.

I'd probably help them write the thing.

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about if Rev. Vosper could convince you that she should stay with the doctrine as is.

Because, in the end, we have processes for making decisions about what the denomination (as a body) says it believes, and requires of its ministers.

Chansen, as a UCCan polity-geek, and as someone who has sat on both sides of the oversight & discipline table - once a complaint has been made, there isn't much room for informal conversation by anyone who is part of the process. There used to be. But the church often found itself in legal proceedings that found that the informal conversations had somehow breached our polity, so those official informal conversations have almost completely stopped. With anyone.

So reach out before a complaint is made. Why aren't people asking Metropolitan United why this was not done?

 

[chansen]

No the message is that we are a big tent, you cna coe, listen, learn. Perhaps have your world view challenged.

OMFG. Atheists can have their world view challenged. Christians do not have to put up with that. Really.

Many people have a desire for soe spirituality in their lives. They look for a home to develop it. We are one such place

I'll bet you dollars to donuts, West Hill desires spirituality in their lives, and they'll tell you they develop it there.

 

[Mendalla]

So reach out before a complaint is made. Why aren't people asking Metropolitan United why this was not done?

Likely for the reason that Richard gave. The people at Met decided it was better to follow formal process than to risk consequences of informal contact going off the rails. And, for all you know, they did make informal contact. They aren't exactly going to publicize the conversation since it likely happened "off the record". It may well come out in the review that they did.

I'll bet you dollars to donuts, West Hill desires spirituality in their lives, and they'll tell you they develop it there.

As do UUs. That's why humanists and others join UU. For spirituality without the doctrinal baggage. Why do people keep assuming that no God = no spirituality?

 

[RichardBott]

Well, to be a member in the UCCan, one has to be baptized, have made "a credible profession of faith," and been accepted as having done so by the congregational governing body.

If one is going to be on the congregational governing body, they need to be a member of the UCCan and the congregation, and they need to be elected to that role.

Someone's views on God may have changed since their baptism & profession of faith, and they may now be atheist. If their views are known to the congregation, and the congregation still elects them to the congregational governing body, then that is well within its right to do so.

When it comes to ministry leadership, that whole "in essential agreement with the doctrine of The United Church of Canada," thing kicks in.

Participation in other ways - including giving of time and resources - is up to the individual, member or not.