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
RichardBott said:
Hi, folks - I renewed my password today! So I'll be around if there is any part of the conversation you'd like me to be a part of.
Click to expand...
Hi Richard,

Good to "see" you again on WC2. I remember you very well from the original WC! I always enjoyed reading your posts.

Thanks for taking on this most interesting project.
 
Mendalla said:
Initial comments;

I'm glad to see he's acknowledging the problem with the methodology (self-selecting, not a random sample) and recommending further study.
Click to expand...

I would actually argue that the process was somewhere between self-selecting and random. It wasn't a random sample, but respondents weren't self-selected by Richard either; it was an open invitation to all United Church clergy to participate offered through a variety of different platforms.

Good survey.

Actually, having read through the report, I'm quite pleased with the numbers and - I confess - I was actually thinking that the numbers supporting Gretta's position might have been higher than they were.
 
Mendalla: I'm glad to see he's acknowledging the problem with the methodology

Richard: Thank you, Mendalla. One of the things that was really important for me was that people would take the data seriously. The best way for people to lose confidence in it, from my perspective, is if someone reading the results goes, "yeah, but... yeah, but...," So I did that myself. Name the data for what it is.

I also didn't want to make the limitations so strong that they hid the interesting bits! Over half of the active ministers responded! Yow! What sociologist wouldn't want that kind of response rate!

Mendalla:
It is interesting how different his result is from Gretta's hypothesis.

Richard:
Yes... and that really gave me pause. One of the things it made me think about is how often I extrapolate generalizations from small or biased samples. UCCan clergy are a wide and varied bunch!

Mendalla:
I do like his recommendation on the importance of defining our terms (3 in Executive Summary). Not everyone means the same thing by "God" and that came out in his survey in places. It seems that the UCCan is a diverse church, but it is diverse in its understandings of God, rather than in making belief in God one option as we UUs have.

RICHARD:
I haven't spent much time here, but remembering the previous iteration of WC, I remember how much of our conversation was about defining what we really meant, so we could talk to each other.

I'm suggesting that same kind of "check, check, hmmm... interesting!" process would be helpful for us as UCCan ministry personnel to do.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
revsdd said:
I would actually argue that the process was somewhere between self-selecting and random.
Click to expand...


"Self-selecting," means something a bit different, though. In this survey, individual ministry personnel chose whether it not they would participate. They "self-selected." The difficulty with self-selecting is that only those people with a reason to self-selected will take part. Sometimes, that can skew the results - let's say a group in the population has a chip on their shoulder, or another group is afraid to participate.

Self-selecting bias is somewhat mitigated by a large sample size... but we need to remember it's there
 
RichardBott said:
"Self-selecting," means something a bit different, though. In this survey, individual ministry personnel chose whether it not they would participate. They "self-selected." The difficulty with self-selecting is that only those people with a reason to self-selected will take part. Sometimes, that can skew the results - let's say a group in the population has a chip on their shoulder, or another group is afraid to participate.

Self-selecting bias is somewhat mitigated by a large sample size... but we need to remember it's there
Click to expand...
Correct. I understand the concept of self-selecting from an academic perspective. I may have mis-interpreted Mendalla's comment. I read it as if he was suggesting that you had selected the participants.
 
Waterfall said:
Good to hear from you again Richard.
Now what will be done with this information?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure, Waterfall. I guess it depends on what people want to do with the information.

I know, from Facebook, that there are at least three groups of ministers getting together over the beverage of their choice, to discuss the results.

I've had a colleague contact me, to see if there could be some formal way we help people build such discussions.

The thing is - this was a personal project, with no official sanction, imprimatur , or support... so no one is obliged to do anything with the results.
 
RichardBott said:
I'm not sure, Waterfall. I guess it depends on what people want to do with the information.

I know, from Facebook, that there are at least three groups of ministers getting together over the beverage of their choice, to discuss the results.

I've had a colleague contact me, to see if there could be some formal way we help people build such discussions.

The thing is - this was a personal project, with no official sanction, imprimatur , or support... so no one is obliged to do anything with the results.
Click to expand...

I propose that the General Council Executive establish a working group (consisting of equal numbers of men/women, clergy/lay, gay/straight, brown eyed/blue eyed, tall/short) to review the survey, after which they should consult widely with congregations and other interested parties, and prepare a study document to issue to congregations, after which a remit could be proposed to the next General Council - well, it'll be two General Councils from now by the time this is all finished, or, actually, it may be the demoninational council if the current set of remits pass, but that's kind of beside the point, which was - let me see here - it was ... oh, right, the survey. So the working group will report the results of the consultation (which will have to include conversations with our ecumenical and inter-faith partners, including those outside Canada and especially the United Church of Christ - since we're all nice and cozy with them now) to not the next but the following meeting of whatever the national governing body is, which can then if it likes the report choose to issue a remit, which will then have to be studied and then voted on (and I think it should go to congregations - or, I mean, local faith communities if the current remits pass - as well) and then - if it's approved by them and the Presbyteries (or - I mean - the Regional Councils if the current remits pass) it can go back to the next national governing thing-y (whatever it's called by then) meeting (which will be not the next one or the one after it but the one after the one after the next one) to be actually implemented, by which time Gretta will probably be retired anyway, so who cares.

I like that we have a straightforward and simple process for dealing with such things.
 
I remember once sitting in a lunch room at the Trust company where I worked. A young man from the Mortgage department was talking about something -- I don't remember the topic (it might have been raising children or economics - just lunch hour chatter). Of the eight or ten of us in the room, three or four were taking part in the conversation. They may have made some remarks like 'you have a point there', or 'I hadn't thought of it like that'. What surprised me was something he said a few days later about the same topic - 'We discussed that in the lunch room and everybody agreed with me. (then, pointing at me) You were there. You heard it.'
No I didn't hear anybody agreeing with you on the topic, although some may have agreed on some points. The majority didn't indicate agreement or disagreement. I certainly didn't agree, but I didn't think that was the time or place to start an argument, and I didn't think I could change your mind.
Remaining silent, politely listening, refraining from arguing, does not constitute agreement.

That was many years ago. It came back to my mind recently when Vosper referred to a seminar where she was keynote speaker, and she claimed that most of the clergy and lay people present agreed with her. I realized I had attended that seminar - and I didn't get the impression that 'most' or even a large number of the people agreed with her. They were interested in what she had to say (at least at first), polite, some agreeing with some of her points, but overall - NO, they weren't on the same page.

It seems to me that this survey, although not perfect, gives a more accurate picture of UCC clergy beliefs than a general warm fuzzy feeling that 'everybody agrees with me' when people clap for a speaker.

Reading through the report reassures me that most UCC clergy believe in God, whatever God may mean for them.

It seems to me that most people fall somewhere on a continuum of faith. At one end are those who believe the Bible is literally 'the word of God for all time' and consider themselves (and only themselves) saved or born-again, true Christians. On the other end are the strong athiests who believe that all religion is evil. And the rest of us are strung out somewhere along the line. I have an idea where I would put myself on this line, though it varies from time to time. I imagine that many people would put me somewhere else - those on the right probably putting me closer to the left; and those on the left putting me further to the right.

I'm glad to read the results of a survey where people self-identify their position.
 
Might be interesting to see this data sliced for other demographics - age, rural/urban, years in ministry, etc.

I suspect that Gretta's 50% was more inherently self-selected than your survey, in that she would naturally gravitate towards the more progressive of her colleagues.
 
BetteTheRed said:
Might be interesting to see this data sliced for other demographics - age, rural/urban, years in ministry, etc.

I suspect that Gretta's 50% was more inherently self-selected than your survey, in that she would naturally gravitate towards the more progressive of her colleagues.
Click to expand...

There were 6 demographic questions asked, which I will be doing some further exploration with. I really wanted to get the preliminary data out as quickly as I could.

And I think you're right, Bette.
 
I think the more interesting thing is that, by the numbers, approximately 5% of the ministers are atheists. And approximately 20% would put themselves in the 50% Gretta speaks of. Meanwhile, people seem pleased that a majority of ministers believe in God, when you might expect them to be dismayed that dozens or hundreds apparently do not. They seem relieved that Gretta appears off on her numbers, when really, the point remains that a significant portion of UCCan ministers have arrived at similar conclusions.
 
Could be similar to one of Gretta Vosper's stances, yes, chasen.

The thing is, I think many are relieved because we can understand that Ministry Personnel have a wide variety of interpretations of God. We can work with that.

We can ask questions like, "What does supernatural mean to you?" And "what does theistic mean to you?" "Really, I understood it means X!" "Well, by that definition, I could agree with you, but... etc."

The place that doesn't make sense to many would be ministry personnel who are "traditionally" (for want of a better term) atheist, the ministry personnel who take the stance that there is no god. Period.
 
I commend you @RichardBott, for your interesting and hard work.

Does it not show us how far we have come as a people, to be able to use FaceBook and the

computer as a tool. ChurchLady is probably aghast at our progress.

It is kind of ironic that we have had many threads about Gretta Vosper

and some folk say enough is enough and here we are basing a Survey

on her comments. At least she has the church talking. Thank you again.
 
RichardBott said:
The place that doesn't make sense to many would be ministry personnel who are "traditionally" (for want of a better term) atheist, the ministry personnel who take the stance that there is no god. Period.
Click to expand...
Even I don't say that. I'm almost positive that Gretta doesn't say that. There is no evidence. In the absence of evidence, and with all the competing claims about the nature of God appearing ridiculous, I can not believe. I can not know.for sure, but under the circumstances, living my life as if there is no God is the best solution I can come up with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top