Gross Misuse of Statistics
I’ve been reading through the final report of the BRTFSSG and have noticed several times that the surveys from the district conventions were used to draw conclusions about the recommendations. I previously wrote about how the substance of these recommendations was really glossed over when the surveys were taken. It took only reading the first recommendation to find a gross misuse of the survey data.
From the report:
Recommendation #1: Affirm and Clarify Governing Documents
Amplify, affirm, and clarify the Preamble of the Synod’s Constitution (Reason for the Existence of a Synod), Article II (Confession), Article III (Mission and Purpose), Article VI (Requirements of Membership), and Article VII (Relation of Synod and Its Members).
These recommended changes to the Synod’s governing documents are outlined in Appendix 1 of this document (Pages 1.1-1.7). In the feedback received from the thousands of delegates at the 2009 district conventions, the task force was encouraged by the 83 percent of respondents either agreeing strongly or agreeing with this recommendation.
So 83 percent of respondents agreed that the LCSM should affirm and clarify its governing documents. Did the presentation explain what those changes were? Of course not! If it had there’s no way that number would have been 83 percent. Did 83 percent know they were agreeing to remove the “exclusive use of doctrinally pure agenda, hymnbooks, and catechisms in church and school?” Did 83 percent know they were agreeing that they no longer would “encourage congregations to strive for uniformity in church practice?”
I won’t go so far as to say that this was the intent of the survey, but now that the surveys are in, the BRTFSSG seems to have used them in an inappropriate manner.
Comments are closed.
Subscribe via RSS