Hi DKS,

I'm not sure how your thread title reflects the content.

You aren't suggesting that the problem with The United Church of Canada is that half of all its clergy are trained there are you?  

I mean, I know that is what everybody at the other seminaries thinks.

Grace and peace to you.

John

No, John. It's not the place, but the numbers. We have 199 candidates across the church. 25% are at Emmanuel. It's the number that's important. No statement about quality or lack thereof was intended nor implied.

Some more stats ~ that speak clearly to the State of Ministry Candidates (shared at Halton Pres. April 2010)

~ Halton and Ottawa Presbyteries produce the most Candidates for Ministry

~ There has been a decline of 6% in enrolment for ministry in each of the last five years

~Candidates are predominantly mid-life or second careers

~ The trends are showing young adults are interested in studying religion but not in Ordination

~ Only 14 of 2700 UC ministers are under 30 years of age

~ 50% of ministry will be 65 years of age in the next five years

~ 70% of all Candidates come from Ontario

   Interesting stats to ponder...

And in one year recently, all 48 candidates for Transfer were women.

Meaning Order of Ministry streams or Ordered and Lay ministry both?  At what point do they count as enrolled? (these are merely ponderings to understand what is being counted, not a discounting of the relevance of the statistic) 

This is not new.  One time (I forget why) I was looking at a listing and realized that there have always been a lot more people being ordained after 30 than I had been led to believe.  And in some ways I think that someone coming to ministry later in life is a healthy thing.  It means they have more of a sense of life and reality than many people who start school at 5 and continue straight through until finishing a second degree.

Seeing as the trends show that young adults are less interested in the Church as a whole this is hardly surprising.

I think too much is made of this.  The age to count is under 40.  Given the educational requirements it is a matter of basic addition to realize that there will always be few members of the Order of Ministry (which is patently what they are counting here as there are far more than 14 people in CDM positions as youth workers who are under 30) under 30.  Assuming a 4 year undergrad and a 4 year ordination/commissioning program someone who graduates high school at 18 and goes straight through school with no breaks would be 26.

How does this relate to the % of UCCan members who are in Ontario?  Is it higher or lower?

I disagree, but I'm one who went straight through...

DKS wrote " And in one year recently, all 48 candidates for Transfer were women"  Yes ~ the Spirit is working hard to regain gender balance.

GordW ~ many of the young people I know are greatly interested in religion and the church as a whole ~ however their vision of the church is vastly different from what is in place at many UCs.  Many of the young people I talk with see lay leaders as being the future of the UC and not the good folks who are ordained.

I am curious.  Which US Theological School's are accredited by the UCC?  Are they just accredited in an agreement with a US Church? 

I heard that the average age of an ordinand today is 45. I think that number is now low. This year at M&O our two ordinands were both 50+. We had two ministers who were re-admitted and one admitted from another denomination, all 45+. Only the Designated Lay Minister was under 40, and he is a Youth Minister.

At Montreal & Ottawa Conference, only 3 of the 8 of the retirees had reached full pension status (35 years of service).  Two of the retirees were ordained after I was, and I still have 15 more years to go.

There was a scary amount of grey hair and canes at the annual meeting of conferece this year.

How?

I'm not sure what the current numbers are but  I believe we may have already reached or gone beyond "gender balance" - if by "gender balance" you mean that 50% of our ministers should be women. Based on the ordinations I see and the Presbytery I serve in (and have served in previously) I'd be surprised if more than 50% of our ministers (at least the active ones currently serving pastoral charges) aren't women by now. And if that isn't the case now, it sure will be soon, given the number of retirements coming up.

No. They might be attending US seminaries prior to doing they required time in a United Church college. It's not uncommon.

Here are the current numbers:

http://www.united-church.ca/organization/statistics

Make of it what you wish.

David do these numbers include retired?  Are these all serving a congregation?

Well, Emmanuel IS the best college of the bunch and U of T IS the Harvard of the North, but don't say that too loud or Queen's and McGill will get jealous.

Emmanuel and other UCC theological schools in Canada are accredited by the Association of Theological Schools in Canada and the United States (accrediting body) and schools with similar accreditation in the US have trained UCC students.  Back in the stone age (the 1970's) we had to take a course in United Church polity.  I'm still confused, even after taking courses with the 'dean' of Canadian Church history, Dr. John Webster Grant (name dropper)!

Yes in the seventies - was after at least 72 -  one had to take a course but prior to that I didn't - I think they assumed we would learn it by doing - which I did - was better than those who had gone to a UCC school.  I had to join the UCC though, to get ordained.  But coming from one the top schools in North America ( Chicago- school name dropping) I had no problems over my degrees.

No idea. The national web page doesn't break them out in that way.

As did I...

David then I think the numbers include retired and those not in a cong so Steve's point may be correct - closer to 50/50.

 Yes, I would think the national numbers refer to all ordained people - retired, retained and active.

 Hi - p.134 of book 2 of the 2008 yearbook would suggest that the numbers DKS quoted above does include all retired, retained and active.

Total Number of UC Ordained Ministers - 3,762

Total Number of UC Diaconal Ministers - 283

Total Number of DLM - Recognized - 139

Tota Number of DLM - Presbytery Appointed - 181

Number of OM serving charges - 1,702

Number of DM serving charges - 128

OM in Special Ministries - 180

DM in Special Ministries - 16

Unfortunately, the Year Book doesn't have breakdown by sex. It would be interested to know what that looks like in the "active" categories.

Christ's peace - r

I am sure Joe Ramsey at MEPS would know. Someone page Martha. She's in that office.

Is that a Baptist?

I just wish that in many of these Church Life threads you United Church folk would be more inclusive, instead of tailoring them all around the UCC. We in other denominations may not be in the same denomination as you, but we also have church experiences to share.

Jae - so start a thread... lots of threads have limited audience.

Re:  Midlife/Gender/age - I agree 40 is an important difference from 30, and gender has something to do with it.  In the above conversation on this, it seems the comments came from men, and I signed up for my mDiv, under 40 as a woman.  I also am within reasonable driving distance to Emm.  I dont'  have enough energy with my family, and my present half-time lay ministry position.  This is why women wait til they are older.  Maybe the dads do too - can't speak for them.  I did meet some other parents giving it a try.  As Yoda would say, "Do, or do not.  There is no 'try,'."  Obviously he didn't have children.

By my experience and knowledge of people around me, from the time the kids start cooing at us, until the time they vacate the family home, energy for focused work on mDiv amidst the rest of life is scarce.

Why? There are multiple threads. Not all are of any interest. If you want to talk about something that interests you, start a thread. Who knows? Maybe non-Baptists will join in...

Have to agree jae. If you find a particular thread boring, uninteresting or not relevant to you - just leave it alone, and find something that is interesting to you, but if you have nothing helpful to contribute (and posting a picture of a guy yawning is not helpful) then don't. As my momma used to say "if you don't have something nice to say, then say nothing."

no need for a derailed thread here folks...

do these numbers lead us to ideas of how to properly lead the church/train the leaders?    Or how to interest & bring in quality leaders?  Or how to ensure the process isn't railroaded by strong people with narrow agendas?

If Halton Presbytery brings in candidates, I bet its in a large part because Emmanuel is so easy to get to.  If Ottawa presbytery does, is that because Queens is right there?  Or are there talented recruiters?   Those are not GOOD reasons, but they make sense.

Bascially we recruit through involvement and some mentoring.  In my carreer I have encouraged over 15 people to go into the ministry.   It is like those who become profs - I have a friend who finds bright people and encourages them to go for higher education.

The other night a group of us, some of whom were preachers kids, talked about whether we now would suggest our children to go into the ministry. Many of our children were interested or are interested in theological discussions but we would not encouage them or our children saw what we have gone through and were discouraged.

The group was an outstanding group of ministers, who are very bright and many of them found the church did not want such a person.  They were all happy in their congregations but and this is a real but, the attitudes within cong had changed from spiritual searching to how is this going to be family centered - as a social network not as a church with a mission.  So their struggle as leaders was how to use the process idea of persuasion to lure the people into a deeper spiritual reality. It seems to be more difficult these days.

We also found there were a lot of young people who loved theology but not the way the UCC is at this moment.

Back to the point of recuritment - it comes when a cong or a minister says you would be a good minister.  I think that is how most of us were called.  To speak personally as a sociologist who loved theology the SCM leader said go to theological school.  I did and in the process say a role for me as a minister - to be a theological resource to people's searching.   Would I go the same route today?  Only a maybe.   But I do have a strong call to witness to God's reality in all things.  So the church is one place committed to that witness so that keeps me in the institution.  It is going to conference that makes me question though.

Hi jae,

So . . .on a website paid for and administered by The United Church of Canada members of The United Church of Canada are to avoid talking about The United Church of Canada so that members not of The United Church of Canada can have some place to discuss issues that are more relevant to them.

Hmmmmm. . . Maybe WonderCafe isn't all about you?

You aren't engaged by a thread, look at another one.  If you have nothing of value to contribute then don't.  Why you think we need to know you are in the room is beyond me.

I'm sure that you do and as others have stated you have the power to start your own threads here.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I am very interested in this situation; we talked about it at Sask. Conf. and were told that in the next 9 years or so 50% of ministers will be retiring...that is so scary for the church I can't quite imagine what will happen. Except I live in Sask. where a pretty fair number of our ministers are Lay Designated Ministers and they do a perfectly fine job, I was one once, and couldn't see the difference in terms of service...although I remain a proponent for an educated clergy and highly valued the opportunity to attend the very best college, St. Andrew's...

I'm just as concerned about the so-called "balance" we've achieved...in the past 5 years at Sask. Conf. we've had female delegates outnumber male delegates by 3-1. This year I was told it was only 2 to 1, I hope that's true.  But it may be true only because there were so many fewer delegates in total, and more women stayed away.  Whatever--I expressed concern about the lack of male representation and was shot down, largely because a few people don't like to be categorized as either male or female--"we don't understand a lot about gender"--and to me that's so beside the point it's right out of the field. There is a need to maintain the balance we fought for so hard for so long, and not say,now that it's so overbalanced with women, that gender balance doesn't matter.

And I don't know where the men have gone!! But my conclusion so far is that men as a group don't like working with women as much as working with other men. They're just not at home that way.  But what we do about that, I have no idea.

oh, hello: did someone call?

I don't actually know the demographics of gender /active/ ordained ...I do know my coworker Catherine's sister was ordained in Ottawa recently!  Congratulations!!

I do know that the average age of ministry personnel (OM or other, I don't know) is over 52, which means in 20 years they will all be drawing pensions. Thank heavens retirement age has been changed!

Thank you, my 90 and out (age + years of service) full pension date looks really attractive. Four more years. 

What we would like to know is the ratio of women to men in active ministry (not including retired members of the Order of Ministry).

You were lucky to have escaped alive from the meeting after than remark.

Most United Church clergy are not broken down by sex.  Some are broken down by over-work!!!

sex is very likely not breaking anyone down - I once read a stat that said that ministers who had sex the night before leading worship were more confident & relaxed.  Go figure!

Panentheism - as usual, I liked your post and that has been my experience with the ministers around me to a 't'.    Same musings, same joys, same experiences with their kids, same comments to me & others, same hesitations. 

Weeze - I think it is a perfectly good question and it fits with several articles or threads here I've seen about Men in church, whether they are feeling served well, how connected they are, how spiritually fed they are, or whether its becoming a women's thing.  My church for example has a staff of entirely women (4 of us, plus 3 women of 4people on M&P, and both Chair & Co-Chair of Council).  The conversations need to be had, including the argument given to you about gender, but not replaced by that issue.

90 and out? I thought it was just 35 years of service for a full pension. If it is 90 (age + years) that means I have to work an extra year. When did they change the rules?

Hmmmm. Something to try next time I'm in the pulpit at my fellowship.

The night before, that is. Not while I'm in the pulpit.

Mendalla

We're both a little off. It's actually 60 + 35. 60 years of age + 35 years of service for an unreduced early retirement pension. I hit that milestone in 2014.  Normal retirement for pension purposes is 65 (2019) and you have to start taking your pension by January 1 following the reaching of the age of 69 (2024).

Constitution summary here:

http://www.united-church.ca/files/minstaff/pension/constitution2005.pdf

Well, Mendalla - that would be a sermon no one would ever forget. Reminds me of a Monty Python skit of John Cleese 'instructing' his class in an uppercrust boys college.

Tee hee. That's what occured to me too after I wrote the first sentence, hence the clarification. It's from Meaning of Life as I recall, which I think also had a very good poke at High Church services.

Mendalla

I thought the same thing when I read that post, but I didn't want to actually say it!

Mendalla - right you are!! The preceding skit has been floated around the cafe in 2 different threads in the past couple of months.

 Well, and isn`t that just a close-minded, dishonest response to an important issue - obviously its an issue if people could be so much on the attack about it  (I don`t mean your specific response Rev StevenDavis - I mean as an official church discussion opportunity)

We`re not going to understand the real issues and the real obstacles unless we explore that issue too.  For example, if the entire church is tipping the balance towards women ministers & women in the pews, ignoring that trend just opens the exit door wide for men.  The numbers are evident, politically correct or not.

Let me say as a progressive and as one who was early influenced by feminist theology, that the comment to you re gender indicates a deep problem in the UCC.... yes I know it is a small group but they have too much influence - I go back to the article in this months Observer with Lois Wilson where she says we have lost the ability to engage in serious debate about issues - what too often happens is we shut down the other ( and I have seen progressives do this as well as conservatives)  Debate the issues and the ideas - that helps all of us move away from ideology which that comment illustrates.   Even if gender is a social construct there is a difference in our bodies which have an influence on our identity... and so does socialization -

Whether we like it not, and whether it says  this is not healthy for a society, studies have shown that the more women are the majority in a profession the less men want to be part of it.  Now I think this is unfortunate but if we are to move forward we need to see how this does influence our world.  It is true feminine and masculine are social constructs, but that does not deny the reality of being male and female. It is the idea of a feminized profession that needs to addressed as a problem - not the the fact the majority in it are female.   Another problem is in the UCC we think equality means sameness.  The comment comes out of that view - which is just bad analysis.

Actually, my post was a tongue in cheek way of making a response to the issue. I think for the most part men especially feel very much on the defensive in the United Church. For example, one often feels either guilty or threatened to actually suggest that men in ministry need some form of support, assistance, etc.  Some years ago in a different Conference than I'm in now there were discussions going on at a meeting about the latest meeting of the Women in Ministry Group. I was one of about 2 or maybe 3 men present while this was going on. It didn't exactly make us feel included in this "inclusive" church of ours - maybe discussions about the last meeting of the Women in Ministry Group should have taken place in a different place and at a different time and with a different group? I made a comment (a serious one) to the effect that perhaps we needed a Men in Ministry Group because in the Presbytery I was serving at the time I'd guess that at least 75% of the active ministers were women. The response to that suggestion ranged from one female colleague who expressed cautious agreement to otherwise hostility or ridicule. It became clear to me that if the male ministers of the Presbytery started to meet together without the females present that would be grounds for deep suspicion on the part of everybody else, as if we must (because we're men) be plotting some misogynistic counter-revolution to seize control of the church back! Why else would men want to meet? That was the honest feeling I got to that suggestion. I've heard the (don't know the opposite of misogynistic - but plug in whatever the word would be here) suggestion that men aren't as spiritual as women; I've heard that women obviously are better equipped to be pastors than men because they're more sensitive and intuitive to other people's feelings; I've heard how much better the church and the world would be if only women were in charge. I've heard all that garbage - not just from a few but from many. Is it any wonder men are feeling somewhat marginalized in the church? But we're not allowed to say that we're marginalized. That would be misogynistic.

From a sociological point of view, and if one were to use stereotypes, one would argue that the problem is caused by the changing status of the church in society. The stereotypes, which are over-generalizations of course, but which do have some validity, suggest that men are drawn to those things which offer prestige or status - the church no longer does that, so most men go for the higher-paying and more prestigious careers (and lay men will opt for the Lions Club or the Chamber of Commerce, both of which have higher profiles in most communities than the church and offer more opportunities to make "connections.") Meanwhile, the stereotype (again, over-generalizations I agree) would suggest that women are far more oriented toward relationship and nurture, which the church at least on the surface offers - especially since the men are no longer running the thing.

I read what weeze wrote and thought - yeah. My impression - although I didn't look at weeze's user profile - is that weeze is a woman. My first thought about her post was that only a woman could raise the issue and be taken seriously - if a man raises it then it's just sour grapes. My second thought was to realize that she as a woman raised the issue and didn't seem to be taken seriously anyway. My third thought (I admit this is based completely on hearsay because I've never served there or even visited the province, but just heard stories) was "Sounds like Saskatchewan Conference!" I actually have a couple of admittedly male colleagues who have joshingly (I think) suggested forming an "I survived Saskatchewan Conference" support group!

So, Birthstone and others - to the extent that my words represent food for thought - munch away!

Blessings, Steven