tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post1549905813650764866..comments2023-10-24T05:49:04.269-04:00Comments on The Chaliceblog: Retracting the "down by 74" figureChalicechickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07781469958573869914noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-25609910235980881382009-04-30T17:13:00.000-04:002009-04-30T17:13:00.000-04:00::((((You lost me here CC. I am sure that whatever...::((((You lost me here CC. I am sure that whatever "loss" the UUA is talking about, be it congregations or individual members is a net loss.)))<br /><br />:Again, if 40 churches closed, unless they were two-person churches or three-person-churches, then other churches must have gained members to make up the difference.<br /><br />No kidding CC. I think that's what is known as a no-brainer. . . <br /><br />For the record it seems that as many as 50 whole UUA congregations may have gone AWOL if I am to believe the following content of the <A HREF="http://www.floridadistrict.org/?p=423" REL="nofollow">Florida UUA Trustee's report</A> of the April 2009 UUA Board Meeting -<br /><br />"Paul (Rickter) reported that 50 congregations failed to certify for GA 2009."Robin Edgarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06208142626285495635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-54665673536005716862009-04-29T13:42:00.000-04:002009-04-29T13:42:00.000-04:00(((hat's a big *if* CC. Why are you stubbornly sti...(((hat's a big *if* CC. Why are you stubbornly sticking to "75 people" when you just officially retracted the "down by 74 figure"? You are being considerably less than logical here.)))<br /><br />Because I had logically supported my reasons for believing the 74 number was either correct or very close to correct. And I still believed that and said so. I just said in my post that you should take it as my belief and not a fact.<br /><br />Also, at the time I wrote that response I had the letter that went out to the UUA board saying it was 74 and was waiting for permission to print it on the blog. And if the UUA were lying to its own board to hide a large drop in membership, my guess is they wouldn't say there was a small drop in membership, they would say there was a small gain.<br /><br />(((That figure would likely be considerably higher than 75 members if the UUA really did lose 40 or more congregations. )))<br /><br />But it wasn't higher than 75 members as far as the overall UUA numbers were concerned. Even if we go with the estimate that excludes the CLF, if 40 congregations closed and the UUA lost only 140 people, then either:<br /><br />1. Those 40 congregations averaged about three people per congregation. <br /><br />or<br /><br />2. There was lots of growth in other churches that made up the difference. <br /><br />((((Your "guess" or your wishful thinking CC? Why do you assume that the remaining U*U congregations "are very healthy on the whole"?)))\<br /><br />Because if 40 congregations closed then the other congregations in the denomination must have gained quite a lot of people for the UUA's net loss to have been only 74 people.<br /><br />And aren't your guesses about the UUA suffering huge losses wishful thinking on your part?<br /><br />(((And if they had 25 people? What if a few of them had a few hundred people CC? What if, for whatever reason, one or more large U*U churches decided to go AWOL?)))<br /><br />Then (a) we would have heard about it and (b) the loss would be reflected in the membership numbers and (c) Peter Morales would be shouting it from the rooftops.<br /><br />((((You lost me here CC. I am sure that whatever "loss" the UUA is talking about, be it congregations or individual members is a net loss.)))<br /><br />Again, if 40 churches closed, unless they were two-person churches or three-person-churches, then other churches must have gained members to make up the difference.<br /><br />CCChalicechickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07781469958573869914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-15495211632560399092009-04-29T12:33:00.000-04:002009-04-29T12:33:00.000-04:00:If we've lost 40 congregations and only lost 75 p...:If we've lost 40 congregations and only lost 75 people, <br /><br />That's a big *if* CC. Why are you stubbornly sticking to "75 people" when you just officially retracted the "down by 74 figure"? You are being considerably less than logical here. I could have misheard her, and Rev. Laurel Hallman could have misspoken during the telephone presidential forum, but I am reasonably sure I heard her speak about 74 whole congregations gone AWOL. This figure is about 30 congregations higher than the current official UUA "loss" of over 40 congregations so I don't know quite what is going on but I have been consistently talking about "lost" congregations, not individual U*Us. That figure would likely be considerably higher than 75 members if the UUA really did lose 40 or more congregations. <br /><br />:then my guess is that our remaining congregations are very healthy on the whole. <br /><br />ROTFLMU*UO! Your "guess" or your wishful thinking CC? Why do you assume that the remaining U*U congregations "are very healthy on the whole"? There is plenty of evidence suggesting that this is not the case. <br /><br />:Even if those 40 congregations only had 5 people each, then that means 200 people left.<br /><br />And if they had 25 people? What if a few of them had a few hundred people CC? What if, for whatever reason, one or more large U*U churches decided to go AWOL?<br /><br />:If the UUA only lost 75, that suggests the other congregations had a net gain of 125.<br /><br />You lost me here CC. I am sure that whatever "loss" the UUA is talking about, be it congregations or individual members is a net loss.Robin Edgarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06208142626285495635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-39479804197703874852009-04-28T17:43:00.000-04:002009-04-28T17:43:00.000-04:00If we've lost 40 congregations and only lost 75 pe...If we've lost 40 congregations and only lost 75 people, then my guess is that our remaining congregations are very healthy on the whole. Even if those 40 congregations only had 5 people each, then that means 200 people left. <br /><br />If the UUA only lost 75, that suggests the other congregations had a net gain of 125. <br /><br />CCChalicechickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07781469958573869914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-48202289514539026612009-04-28T16:55:00.000-04:002009-04-28T16:55:00.000-04:00The down by 74 figure may well be right but, as I ...The down by 74 figure may well be right but, as I said earlier, if so it refers to whole UUA congregations not individual U*Us. As it now stands, more than 40 UUA congregations have officially gone AWOL according to publicly available UUA statistics.Robin Edgarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06208142626285495635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-20730700288055037152009-04-25T20:03:00.000-04:002009-04-25T20:03:00.000-04:00Jess, I left out a clause to the effect that relig...Jess, I left out a clause to the effect that religion is to a considerable extent hereditary, as a space-saver. That omission was a strategic mistake, apparently. Probably another mistake can be when parents (thinking of myself)<br />do not introduce children into RE <br />and a religious community early in life, because of all that it can give by way of a supplement to home life. But in the back of my head was the controversy about infant baptism versus baptism of the adult believer. Perhaps it is <br />not a good parallel.LinguistFriendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02695715246663202212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-33990716283023600252009-04-25T15:52:00.000-04:002009-04-25T15:52:00.000-04:00What do you mean, members are not born into UUism?...What do you mean, members are not born into UUism? My children, both dedicated in a UU church, would like to beg to differ. . .<br /><br />While children do not officially sign membership books until they are old enough to do so, usually 16 or 18 depending on your congregation's bylaws, they are still members of the faith community -- particularly if they have been formally dedicated, which usually includes the congregation agreeing to support their religious upbringing.<br /><br />And religious education enrollment numbers are tracked as part of church membership if you wanna get technical about it.Jesshttp://jesspages.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-83417633336092318422009-04-25T07:59:00.000-04:002009-04-25T07:59:00.000-04:00The issue of what is being counted
here is proble...The issue of what is being counted <br />here is problematic. Members die, but members are not born into any version of UUism that I know, so they come from other sources. Such <br />numbers refer to a dynamic equilibrium with various sources of accretion and drains, many of which I think (after years of membership work) would be identifiable and capable of quantitative estimation. My impression is that the appropriate models here are developed in various areas such as economics and sociology. I don't know whether such population modelling is going on in religious circles, to estimate quantitatively what is possible in particular areas, socio-economic groups, etc. I would like to think that the congregational consultants and institutes on congregational policies lean on such models, but I was distracted from following such things up a few years ago. Probably someone can point them out to me. <br /> From another point of view, I have had the experience in membership work that an incapable pastor or board president would refer (blame for) issues of membership retention to local membership committees. Retention is the result of an overall effective church program, and small groups such as membership committees can have a limited effect, although they can point out and recommend such factors as the importance of integrating new friends and members into the congregation in various senses.LinguistFriendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02695715246663202212noreply@blogger.com