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
I don't need to sit among people who agree with me. Nothing bores me more than back-slapping each other for coming to an obvious conclusion. What the hell would be the point?

And like a lot of people, I have too many options on a Sunday morning. And I don't necessarily think Gretta's group is the sort of thing I want. I'd rather get housework done, go skiing, go biking, or play with my kids. I don't see the need for any Sunday gatherings. Not in my life, nor has my wife ever expressed interest. Some people do. Even some atheists.

I do think that Gretta represents an avenue of growth and of credibility. She may exaggerate some of her points, but both sides are guilty of that (a point that is conveniently ignored). But she makes a lot of sense to a growing demographic, and some in that demographic are interested, for whatever reason, in going to church. And they may be from UCCan families, or they have no UU options, or they just like you guys.

With any move to remove Gretta, you are satisfying people who don't have anything to do with her, and directly impacting people who are directly impacted or influenced by her. And though you'd be well within your rights, that doesn't make it an intelligent decision that is in the best interests of the UCCan.
 
chansen said:
I don't need to sit among people who agree with me. Nothing bores me more than back-slapping each other for coming to an obvious conclusion. What the hell would be the point?
Click to expand...


[FONT=Open Sans, sans-serif]Mutual encouragement and edification? That's what I get from gathering with people who've come to the same obvious conclusion as I have.[/FONT]
 
I take part in sports and activities over shared interests. I belong to sports clubs. That's my weekend thing.

I can see how non-belief could be a shared interest, but I don't need to hang out with atheists. Some do. I don't claim to understand why, but they do.
 
chansen said:
I take part in sports and activities over shared interests. I belong to sports clubs. That's my weekend thing.

I can see how non-belief could be a shared interest, but I don't need to hang out with atheists. Some do. I don't claim to understand why, but they do.
Click to expand...

Would you say that sports is almost *gasp* a religion for you?
 
chansen said:
With any move to remove Gretta, you are satisfying people who don't have anything to do with her, and directly impacting people who are directly impacted or influenced by her. And though you'd be well within your rights, that doesn't make it an intelligent decision that is in the best interests of the UCCan.
Click to expand...
Glad to see you have been persuaded the denomination is acting within its rights. ;)

Certainly Gretta's present congregation will be impacted directly if she is removed from her position. If she forms another church or church-like group I imagine that many (not all) will follow her wherever she goes.

Not sure about the denomination as a whole and what would ultimately be in its best interest.
 
Back to the subject of the survey conducted by @RichardBott

I have been mulling over the question of self-selecting and randomly selected participants. If the survey had been mailed out or distributed electronically to all United Church clergy not everyone would have completed it. There would still be an element of self-selection, would there not? No matter the distribution method, those anxious to support Gretta's assertion or to dispute it might be the most likely to respond.

Can someone explain to me how this element of bias could be overcome? Does it depend on sample size? (Statistics has never been my strong point.)
 
paradox3 said:
.

Can someone explain to me how this element of bias could be overcome? Does it depend on sample size? (Statistics has never been my strong point.)
Click to expand...

My lovely wife is better qualified to answer this than I, but it really comes down to the more random your sample, the better. Sample size matters less than it being properly random. Usually, what you try to do to minimize the bias is calculate an ideal sample size for your population, then draw a random sample that is larger than that, assuming that you will then get enough back to achieve the sample size that you wanted in the first place. But the key is to make it as random as possible, else statistical inferences cannot be validly drawn and statistical tests cannot really be used without qualifying the hell out of your conclusions.

Simply blasting the population and using those who happen to respond as your "sample" is not really random because those who respond could be those who have a vested interest in the results (as mentioned upthread once or twice).
 
Mendalla said:
Simply blasting the population and using those who happen to respond as your "sample" is not really random because those who respond could be those who have a vested interest in the results (as mentioned upthread once or twice).
Click to expand...
Thanks, Mendalla but I still have two questions:

How would you go about getting a properly random sample? Of United Church ministers, say? If blasting all of them with a copy of a survey and an invitation to complete it would not the best method?

How can you get around the fact that those who respond to any survey could possibly have a vested interest in its outcome?
 
Last edited:
How would you concern yourself with a religion demanding real gods when mindful loves are just passing aspirations with real people ... non-stickers?

Does that create outliers in the survey of statistics on mediums ... consider that in the world of the weird marketplace (bazaar Hadassah) the goal is to remove the medium, or middle class! It is a thought in essence ... haunting anis (Annie or a worrying woman that bugs real men distracting them from war to other activities ... that can lead them to heaven ... or loss of thought about strife ... simply mind blowing ... bleu sacre? Suite like indigo ...
 
paradox3 said:
How would you go about getting a properly random sample? Of United Church ministers, say? If blasting all of them with a copy of a survey and an invitation to complete it would not the best method?
Click to expand...

In this day and age, this is the easy one.

You take a list of the full population in some kind of electronic format (an Excel worksheet would be good, but so would direct access to a database, assuming such exists). There are programs that will then take that list and randomly pull whatever number of records from it that you specify. So, if there are (hypothetically speaking for purposes of my example) 10,000 ordained UCCan ministers and you've decided a random sample of 1250 is enough, you tell the program to pull that number of records and then mail the survey to that 1250.

For instance, if my company wanted to do a statistical survey of our oxygen clients, I could code up a report to randomly draw names from our CRM system's database.

paradox3 said:
How can you get around the fact that those who respond to any survey could possibly have a vested interest in its outcome?
Click to expand...

That's the hard part because you're up against human nature. The good news is that in a random sample, the percentage of the vested interest in the sample will only be as big as the percentage of that interest in the general population so that limits their power to skew things a bit.

However, to truly overcome the problem, the goal must be to get as many of that random sample to respond as possible. Ideally, you want 100% return but that's rare. If you get 100% return and the sample is truly random (ie. every member of the underlying population has an equal chance of appearing in the sample), then you've beaten this problem because mathematicians over the centuries have conclusively demonstrated that a truly random sample will reflect the underlying population within a set margin of error (the "19 times out of 20" or whatever that you sometimes hear with poll results). You usually shoot for at least 95% margin in social sciences, hard sciences generally shoot higher, often 99+%.

How do you make sure that you get responses from 100% of your sample? Offer rewards? Follow-up calls? You name, statisticians have tried it.

If you don't get 100% return from your sample, then you can still report your results and do statistical testing, but your margin of error may be higher than desired.

I'll leave it there. Best course of action is to dig up Larry Gonick's "Cartoon Guide to Statistics" or similar non-technical text on the subject. My wife's book would work, too, but it's not cheap (it's a text she wrote based on a course she teaches) and the computer stuff in it is getting a bit long in the tooth (she wrote it on a sabbatical that overlapped with her mat leave and Little M is now 17:cool:).
 
Last edited:
Pr. Jae said:
Would you say that sports is almost *gasp* a religion for you?
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I love my sports. I think they are the best sports. I have no empirical evidence for that, but I still believe it. I'm downright irrational about my sports being the best sports. My sports are disturbingly close to being a replacement for religion.
 
Some Romans thought it a sport to send Gladiators up against ancient adepts ... non-Roman cynics from older domains?

Verges on the fringe of ancient outliers ... ageism?
 
BetteTheRed said:
Does anyone besides me find "belief" a rather involuntary process? (In a "one of these things is not like the other" way?)
Click to expand...
I read this in passing n put it in my mental clipboard n forgot where it was.

Could you clarify futher what you were trying to get at?
 
chansen said:
Oh ffs. If you're going to say that the supernatural, all-powerful deity in which she does not believe, owns her church and does not want her preaching in it, then why does this all-powerful deity call on a bunch of whiners to stop her? Can he not gather a more powerful force? Maybe some bears? At least an angry beaver. Come on.
Click to expand...
Remember we're talking aboot human beings here
We havè in groups and out groups. Those of our in group we tend to treat differently than those in the out group. Also we seem to have a built in fairness morality so somebunall christians could be looking at Gretta and feel viscerally that her status isn't fair and so forth...

Which reminds me that could be the reason why sombunall Christians balk at the idear of Jesus saving everyone without the need for that person to convert...I can imagine the thought procesz..."i spent so much of my life going to sunday school those many sermons reading that looooooong anthology how dare they say they are saved"

Another reason why I dont like joining clubs...it stops being aboot people and more aboot proper posture n such frippery....
 
chansen said:
Absolutely. I love my sports. I think they are the best sports. I have no empirical evidence for that, but I still believe it. I'm downright irrational about my sports being the best sports. My sports are disturbingly close to being a replacement for religion.
Click to expand...

I have an acquaintence who is fanatic about biking. She bikes about eight months of the year - belongs to a seniors' bike club that meets weekly to bike 20 klms or so out of town and back but she is one of the few that, on reaching the planned destination, will suggest continuing on another 15 klms to the bridge to return on the other side of the river, doubling the distance for the day. She also bikes around town doing her errands, and can sometimes be seen carrying a picnic basket and a folding lawn chair on her bike. She and her husband each have a car but she prefers to bike.
When there is too much snow to bike, she walks three or four klms to and from church and meetings in most weather - stripping off layers of clothing when she arrives. She is over 80, and has fallen several times in the past year. People worry about her. But it appears that biking is the first and most important thing in her life. She will probably die biking.
 
Inannawhimsey said:
I read this in passing n put it in my mental clipboard n forgot where it was.

Could you clarify futher what you were trying to get at?
Click to expand...

I was reacting to Richard Bott's statement: "When it comes to questions of doctrine and belief, the polity and structure of the UCCan is clear - it is the General Council (through the remit process) that decides what the doctrine of the United Church is, and also names what skills, abilities, educational process, and beliefs are expected of its ministers."

You can develop skills, hone abilities, process through an education. "Belief" is more a place you get to, and isn't something that I find, for myself, that I can direct or plan for in any useful way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top