On Rev. Morales' campaign website, he bemoans the fact that the UUA's numbers are down for the first time since the early 1990's.
This MUST serve as a wakeup call, he declares.
First off, the decline of 74 people that Morales is so hot to turn into a campaign issue isn't even statistically significant.
Secondly, a quick jaunt by UUA data services reveals that Morales' home church, which had 775 members last year, now has 764. So the entire UUA's loss in membership would have been about fifteen percent less if he'd held on to the people in his own church.
Now there's a wakeup call.
Do I think a difference of nine people in a 750+ member church means anything? No, I don't. People die, people move away, people get busy at work, people marry observant jews and convert, people forget to pledge and get dropped off the rolls*, people get divorced and feel weird going to church with their ex-spouses. This stuff happens.
The thing is, it happens on a national scale, too. I certainly don't see a loss of 75 people meaning anything much in a national organization of hundreds of thousands.
Everything I read from the Reverend Morales sounds like a marketing appeal, this new letter especially. He is currently using this loss of 74 people as an emergency that calls for marketing as a solution.
I don't believe him. I don't want a marketer, I want a minister.
And Laurel Hallman is the minister I want.
CC
*As an aside, two of the three UU congregations I've been involved with have required a financial commitment for membership. This makes me wonder how often "Bob loses his job. He could pledge some, but can't afford to pledge what he could last year. Embarassed, he throws his pledge card away rather than submitting it with a reduced amount. He keeps attending, and even throws cash in the collection plate, but is dropped from the pledge rolls." has played itself out in our congregations. I know it has happened at least once because I've been Bob. I suspect that in these tough economic times it has happened quite a bit. Indeed, I bet you it has happened more than 74 times in the last year.
28 comments:
I totally agree with you re: authenticity, ministry, and Rev. Hallman.
On the financial commitment requirement -- most churches have some kind of a waiver, or even a pledge of service instead of money, but I totally get the embarrassment factor, having been there myself. But, on the other hand, when a church doesn't have that requirement, membership can be much more cavalier. Our current church doesn't require a pledge of record, and also has a culture where pledges are secret from the minister, which is causing all kinds of issues. The main one is that the same 10-20 people seem to be on the hook for everything, since they've always been there. . .
I see the financial commitment as symbolic with tangible benefits -- giving new members more ownership in the congregation from the get-go, which can also lead to higher levels of volunteerism and other involvement.
I'm a Bob too. Guess I'm one of the 75!
I don't know where you get a "decline of 74 people" CC. I don't see that figure on Morales' website. I think that you will find that he was talking about 74 whole *congregations* dropping off the map of the U*U World. . . I am pretty sure that I heard Rev. Dr. Laurel Hallman speak about 74 UUA *congregations* gone AWOL during the UUA's recent telephone presidential forum. This does not mean that all 74 of these UUA congregations are gone for good, but I am reasonably sure we aren't just talking about 74 individual people aka persons. Rev. Hallman was also concerned that RE enrolments are significantly lower. . .
Maybe you should check your facts and I will check mine. . . For the record, over two months ago I asked the UUA to supply me with overall membership figures for adult membership and RE enrolments from the 2000-2001 church year up to the present. So far. . . I have not received *any* figure for any year and, while it initially looked like the usual UUA incompetence and bungling that seems to be par for the course for the UUA I can't help but think that they are now deliberately withholding this information, which should be available to all U*Us to say nothing of publicly available, because the UUA doesn't want U*Us to know just how bad things really are. . . You're right CC people die and, from the look of things. . . very few people are interested in filling the shoes of dead U*Us. I warned U*Us about this scenario over a decade ago. Nobody listened.
The number of congregations in the UUA is a number that is easily findable on the UUA website, and it has gone UP by a few.
The UUA probably hasn't given you that information because it is already on the website.
CC
Ps. My aunt had the same concerns about the Presbyterian church when I was a small child, so it's not that people aren't listening to you, it's that they haven't figured out a solution to the issue of gen-x and younger people being less inclined to go to church than baby boomers and their parents were.
At least 20 years ago, my aunt predicted that the Presbyterian church's numbers would sink and sink and she has thus far been proved correct.
:The number of congregations in the UUA is a number that is easily findable on the UUA website, and it has gone UP by a few.
Really CC. Where is that? And how up to date is that figure? I doubt either Rev. Morales or Rev. Hallman would be concerned about a decrease of 74 members overall but a loss of 74 congregations in the space of one year *is* something to be concerned about. Feel free to consider me delusional CC but I am quite sure that I heard Rev. Dr. Laurel Hallman, not Rev. Peter Morales, expressing concern about a loss of 74 UUA *congregations* in the most recent count and a significant decrease in RE enrolments during the telephone presidential candidates forum. I look forward to seeing an official UUA transcript of what was said during that telephone forum as some of the things that were said by both candidates were really quite interesting. Both did quite well BTW. Nobody really put their foot in it or anything or U*Us would have heard about it by now on The Blog That Cannot Be Named. ;-)
:The UUA probably hasn't given you that information because it is already on the website.
ROTFLMU*UO! If only you could see the two month long email string CC. . . Something you and a whole bunch of other U*Us might well get the chance to do soon enough. If that information is on the web site they should have directed me to it. They did no such thing. . . It really is quite interesting what was said in those emails, to say nothing of some of the phone calls I made.
Check your facts CC. It seems like 74 *congregations* not people disappeared off the map of the U*U World in the latest count in February of this year.
I think we are talking 74 people...although I also think that the 74 smallest congregations in this denomination would probably number less than 300 people.
Anyway, the problem is not the 74 or 300 who went away, the problem is the hundreds and hundreds who never joined. Wouldn't it be nice to imagine that a denomination of 1,000 churches could average at least 1,000 new members, year after year? But we hardly ever do. And I'm glad that Peter Morales is outraged about it. (I assume Laurel Hallman is too, but she's a lot quieter about it) Church as usual just won't do.
CC, it took only three clicks to reach this page which shows 1,095 congregations, which is up from a few years ago, so you are right that it's just a few people he's talking about. A lot of alarmism over not much.
I suppose it is possible that I misheard Rev. Hallman but I thought she spoke about a loss of 74 congregations. I really can't see why she or Morales would publicly express serious concern about a loss of 74 individual people over the whole UUA. U*U blogger arrière-pensée just posted that Total certified congregations for 2009, including those with no financial contribution, is 997. That is under a thousand certified U*U congregrations and I seem to recall that there were over 1100 not so long ago. . .
"Wouldn't it be nice to imagine that a denomination of 1,000 churches could average at least 1,000 new members, year after year?"
I think that that figure and significantly better *could* have been quite readily achieved if U*Us had paid a bit more attention to my cautionary advice over the years. . . Thanks once again for the "validation" Rev. Robinson. Would that some U*U clergy had acknowledged that I have my finger on one of the U*U World's major problems thirteen unlucky years ago when I first started talking about it. I was certainly quite publicly talking about that particular problem, and some other serious problems of the U*Us, on the internet as far back as 1998. . .
Oh well, as Led Zeppelin says, there's still time to change the road U*Us are on. At least one would hope so. . .
Robin,
If you don’t trust my numbers, I suggest you rely on your own common sense and ask yourself which situation makes more sense:
A. The UUA has been up by a few dozen people or a few hundred people every year for the last decade or so, but has a bad year and is down by 75 people.
B. The UUA has been up by a few dozen people or a few hundred people every year for the last decade or so, but has a bad year and is down by 75 congregations.
Unless there’s a compelling reason to think the UUA might suddenly be losing lots and lots of people this particular year after having had fairly stable numbers for a long time, and I don’t know what that reason would be, then I think it is most reasonable to assume that either Hallman misspoke or you misheard and we are actually down 75 people.
CC
You *really* are *too* funny Joel!
Scroll down to the bottom of this official UUA webpage and then ask yourself what happened to almost 100 U*U congregations. . .
If Morales is outraged about it and his own membership numbers are down, then maybe outrage isn't the solution.
CC
((((Scroll down to the bottom of this official UUA webpage and then ask yourself what happened to almost 100 U*U congregations. . .)))
I know! I know! They moved overseas!
That must be it since the page Robin links to lists only congregations in America and Joel's page has a congregation in the Phillapines as its first link.
As I said CC. Why don't we all stop reasonably or unreasonably assU*Uming and start checking the actual facts. It wouldn't hurt if the UUA supplied an official transcript or, even better, a podcast of the telephone presidential forum which would confirm what Rev. Laurel Hallman said but I honestly can't see either Rev. Hallman or Rev. Morales publicly expressing serious concerns about a dip in UUA membership of only 75 people. As you said *perspective* please. For the record that "loss" of UUA congregations, whatever it may be, may only be on paper. It may simply be a matter of UUA congregations that missed the deadline for certification and the UUA will "regain" them a thus "grow" by a number of congregations next time round. The accuracy and reliability of UUA statistics may be another matter altogether in light of what was said in the emails and phone calls I made. . . UUA Data Services sounded like they were quite unable to even arrive at reliable figures for the last decade or so.
"Unless there’s a compelling reason to think the UUA might suddenly be losing lots and lots of people this particular year after having had fairly stable numbers for a long time, and I don’t know what that reason would be,"
Can you say *recession* CC?
What if a bunch of UUA congregations simply decided not to get "certified" this year in order to avoid having to pay UUA fees which are in the order of $56 per member? Also. . . there are a lot of U*U congregations with 25 members or less. It is entirely possible that the recession caused a bunch of teeny tiny congregations from *The* Tiny Declining Fringe Religion to throw in the proverbial towel, if only temporarily.
Actually, the Phillipines church is on both lists- the internationals are at the bottom of the UU Data Services list. The difference is at the very top of the Data Services list: "The following congregations submitted their membership numbers to the UUA between November 15, 2008 and February 2, 2009 (inclusive)." The other list is all congregations, including those who are lax in their paperwork.
And, if I remember correctly. . . Rev. Laurel Hallman spoke about contacting the AWOL UUA congregations to find out just what was up with them. I can't imagine that she or any other top level UUA official would contact 74 individual people to find out why they decided to become XU*Us. Congregations, even those lax in their paperwork and thus lax in paying their annual dues to the Unitarian*Universalist *Association* of Congregations. . . are quite another matter. I might add that Rev. Hallman spoke about a significant drop in RE enrollments and, in that the UUA pads its membership statistics by including RE enrollments in the overall membership figures, I am quiet confident that we are not talking about 74 people. But i could be wrong, as could Rev. Hallman, as could the UUA's understaffed and apparently somewhat "less than competent" Data Services department.
"...I can't help but think that they are now deliberately withholding this information, which should be available to all U*Us...."Robin, are you still a UU?
There is no such thing as a UU Kim. . . No I am not a member of any UU "church" but that basic membership information *should* be available to all U*Us but currently is not, and it should be publicly available to interested non-UUs. Try finding official basic UUA membership statistics from 2000 to the present online. . .
I'm not sure why the UUA, a private non-governmental organization, should have to reveal membership information, especially to a non-member. There are a lot of organizations that don't reveal that.
Every year, they put the statistics up online, so you can look at the current year's to your heart's content. You can even print out one year's and save it and compare to your heart's content when the next year rolls around.
If you can't be bothered to do that, then why is it the UUA's job to send you the information given that you're not going to use it for a legitimate purpose for a UU congregation or organization?
CC
First, to be fair, I think the argument has gotten away from CC's point: perspective. She has a fair comment that both canidates, and even their supporters, should be honest about the facts.
Second: I followed your link and could not find anything that spoke about 75 people or congregations. Therefore, in the interest of integrity (and because as a good law student you know you should always be clear in your citation), please provide more direct information.
Third: When we as a people of faith consider the positive message that our belief has, I fail to see the problem with either candidate being enraged at our low numbers.
Personally, I back Moralez, he seems to have concrete plans for real, long lasting and effective growth. That said, if CC can provide a cite where he really talked about 75 people and scaled it to a national problem, then that's a fair cop. Her criticism if valid in that context.
I'd heard that 74 was the number given at the UUA board meeting. I will look for backup documentation, though I'm inclined to believe it because it's a logical number.
ROTFLMU*UO!
CC heard it through the U*U grapevine eh? We all know what happens when information gets filtered through the U*U grapevine. For the record U*U blogger Peripatos directed me to these recent UUA membership statistics. CC please take note of the fact that there were 1042 "certified" UUA congregations in 2007-2008 there are now 997.
1042 minus 997 = 45
So, at least in terms of official "certified" UUA congregations 45 went AWOL over the course of one year. Do you still believe the number 74 being bandied about refers to people? I'll stick with congregations until I hear otherwise from a reliable source. I take not of the fact that the UUA lost the better part of 3000 RE enrollments in the last five years or so. . . This aligns very much with what I heard Rev. Laurel Hallman say during the telephone presidential candidates forum.
Now, now, Robin; let's approach a serious discussion with a little more analysis:
Well, CC, "heard" what it was about at some meeting you didn't attend certainly degrades your credibility.
I am surprised someone who is always bringing up their legal training on their blog would resort to...well hearsay. And this hearsay wouldn't make it through any of the exceptions. Unless this was some dying declaration and at this point I would demand proof.
It makes your post really more of an uninformed rant since it's not based on anything. Your cite to Morales' webiste is an out and out lie since you are not citing to your source. You have no real source. Which in the end makes your post a shrill deception.
Shoddy research and incorrect conclusions should not be in any pursuasive argument you make at this point in your legal training. Even if it is not a legal argument, your throught processes should really be more ordered.
Take some advice from someone who's graduated from law school: doing better should be second nature to you by now.
I look forward to your bringing in some real evidence of your claims. Otherwise, that post not only embarassed you but cast your candidate in a poor light.
That said: If you do get real evidence, I for one would be interested in the discussion.
Chuck B. I agree that ChaliceChick would appear to be suffering from yet another Unitarian*Universalist U*U "foot-in-mouth disease" here. I think my own analysis is quite adequate but feel free to provide more of your own analysis.
I am not engaging in all that much "hearsay" myself. I am trying to determine the verifiable facts. I listened to the full telephone presidential forum the other day and I am reasonably sure that I heard Rev. Laurel Hallman express concern about a "loss" of 74 congregations. It is possible that I misheard her or that she "misspoke" but she definitely expressed concern about a significant drop in RE enrollments. Whether it's 74 UUA congregations gone AWOL, or "only" 45, the UUA officially "lost" a significant number of congregations, not just individual members, in the most recent official count. Needless to say, this situation may largely be a matter of "lax paperwork" as Joel Monka has suggested, or it may not. Time will tell. . .
I expect that the UUA may have lost quite a few more than 74 individual members in the last year or so but this is not necessarily so. I have been trying to obtain accurate and up-to-date membership figures covering the last decade from Data Services for over two months now and they have not yet supplied me with *any* membership figures whatsoever in spite of repeatedly indicating that they would do so. The UUA's Data Services department is either "less than competent" or it is deliberately withholding information, or both. . . I just may post the complete email string since it is quite educational.
I do not see why the UUA would be deliberately withholding information since it is readily available online. It is more likely that because of the budget and staff cuts they are just overworked and understaffed.
There is no doubt that that being "overworked and understaffed" is a major part of the problem anonymous but not all of the information I was seeking is available online and, most ironically, the person that I was dealing with seemed quite oblivious to the information that was available online. . . She has failed to respond to my most recent emails and I believe that it is possible that she may well have been ordered to cease communication with me when higher level UUA administrators got wind of my requests for updated membership statistics. It would not be the first time that a UUA staffer was ordered not to communicate with me. I will probably phone soon to see just where we stand.
"I certainly don't see a loss of 75 people meaning anything much in a national organization of hundreds of thousands."
What about a loss of 50 whole congregations, over the span of one single church year, in a national organization of now less than one thousand congregations?
How's that for perspective ChaliceChick? I am still pretty sure that it was the loss of a statistically significant number of whole congregations, not just the loss of 74 individual members, that caused the greatest concern to both Rev. Peter Morales and Rev. Dr. Laurel Hallman. In fact this loss of 50 congregations is the greatest loss of certified UUA congregations in forty years and it is the second greatest loss of congregations in the whole history of the UUA.
Post a Comment