Provisional Minutes of Special meeting of the congregation

Held in the Worship Centre at 2pm on Sunday 17th March, 2013

1. Welcome and apologies

EricArmstrong welcomed the meeting, and asked for a nomination for an interim congregation chairperson. Eric nominated WarrenBartlett, “the right person at the right time”, the nomination was seconded by VidaFoo, and Warren was unanimously elected and greeted with a round of applause.

• Apologies:

HeatherHon, MichaelStringer, MargaretWilliams, HerbFleming and EvelynFleming, RobertFleming, AlanBarnard, KellySkilton, NeilSkilton.

175 people were present.

WarrenBartlett explained that KayeMorgan would fill in as secretary today in the absence of NeilSkilton.

We celebrate the engagement of SarahLorimer and Anna Eelderink's 90th birthday yesterday!

2. Devotion/Opening worship

The congregation sang together “The great love of God”.

WarrenBartlett led a reflection on St Patrick, discussing how Patrick went back to Ireland where he had been a slave, and the difficulties associated with going back to face the hard memories and to take on a hard assignment.

3. Confirmation of minutes of meeting held on Monday 26th November, 2012

The minutes were confirmed by consensus.

4. GWUC Life and Witness Consultation Recommendations

WarrenBartlett welcomed Greg Crowe and Ron Townsend to the meeting.

4.1. Presentation of the Life and Witness Report

Greg Crow presented on behalf of the consultative committee. Greg asked for an indication of who was at the congregational meeting last Sunday 10th March (most of those in attendance today) and on Thursday 14th March for the question and answer session (a few less). Greg recommended the report and recommendations – available on the wiki and in hard copy.

He talked about the difficulties in having issues that are hard to find words to describe, and how when the issues cannot be easily named, they cannot be easily fixed. In crisis we respond differently, some managing, others healing, others retreating. Life can only be found in the brokenness, not by simply rescuing ourselves from it. We need to look under the surface and deal with the problem itself, not just manage the disharmony or look simply for stability. Working only for stability does not bring life transforming oversight.

Greg shared with us a video of the Westminster chorus singing Lux Aurumque, with some beautiful harmonies from an assortment of people. An uplifting example of life-giving harmony.

Greg then went on to flesh out the report from the Life and Witness consultation. In the report, the key issues were identified as Dissonance and Spiritual Oversight/leadership. It seems that what is going on at GWUC is not always life-giving and life-affirming. The structure and culture of GWUC, while there are many good things, is not always life-giving. Carolyn Kitto, during her consultation, heard from the congregation that some felt powerlessness, and that perhaps even good management does not always bring good spiritual oversight. Greg posed the challenge: can we find a way to conduct the choir that brings about harmony from the many excellent songs that are already being sung? He also emphasised that although it is natural to feel undervaluation or blame for dealing with things wrong, this is not intended and there is nothing here that accuses anyone (ministers, management, congregation) of doing anything wrong, or means to imply that the past and continuing contributions of the members of the congregation are not appreciated.

Greg Crowe also addressed Greg Fry’s departure. He wished to emphasise that Rosemary’s exit was independent of the Life and Witness consultation, which was due anyway. There was a call for significant change resulting from the Life and Witness consultation. Greg Crowe made clear that the presbytery does not remove anyone from a placement and this did not happen at GWUC. On behalf of the presbytery, Greg Crowe apologised for any times they have failed the ministry team or the congregation and asked for forgiveness. While it was a difficult conversation on all sides, Greg Fry’s decision was made in order to be most life-giving for both the congregation and himself.

4.2. The table groups spent 20 minutes addressing the following questions:

What is life giving in the report and recommendations? What gives you hope, energises you, what do you value in the report and recommendations? What are your concerns, anxieties, worries or fears that emerge from the report and recommendations?

Response from table groups:

• Table 1:

They felt anxious that the plan won’t achieve what it has set out to achieve and can’t see the necessity for council all to be elders.

• BarbHurst’s table:

Barb spoke about the life-giving aspects of GWUC, that even while it was all unknown there was hope, lots of wonderful things happening and in the future more things to become involved in, even if these came without a label (e.g. Elder) Their concerns included siloing, the ability of the under 55s to commit to the time requirements and commitment of a small council, and a lack of understanding how the change in structure would fix the dissonance. Their feelings included sadness to be here, but they were encouraged that all these people have turned out to discuss our future.

• DavidMorgan’s table:

There were feelings of confusion and puzzlement, trying to understand what the problem is, as well as bewilderment – was it all that badly broken, that it must be all thrown up in the air? How does this new plan fix it?

• AndrewWheatland’s table:

They were excited about some change, but had concerns about automatically becoming an elder when joining church council, in terms of the distinctions between management and spiritual skills. There was also concern about the amount of time that under 55s can commit to church council to do it properly and do it justice.

• GraemeFrecker’s table:

They were energised by the attendance, showing how much we really care about this church. They were confused that the recommendations were focusing on a structure when this is a life and witness consultation, which is about our belief in Christ and how we show that. They felt that the spiritual leadership aspect is about gathering to worship and learn together, not about the structural arrangements. The table felt it is perhaps too soon to make change, that we need time, perhaps some months, to come to an acceptable conclusion before we can all say Amen.

• BarbaraLaidlaw’s table:

Her table was positive about the recommendations, they felt that it would be great to have a church council that is focused on spiritual oversight. They felt that there are more ‘Marthas’ than ‘Marys’ and that we need to grow the ‘Marys’. Their concerns were technical – how do we encourage the under 55s/45s to commit, what is the interim measure? They had discussed the needs of the congregation in terms of range, including day/nights meetings. They felt this time was an opportunity to grow, a long over-due conversation for our congregation.

• BelindaChung’s table:

They were very excited about the fact the conversation is happening and excited about how many people are in the room looking for a way forward. They felt that under 55s would appreciate an opportunity to step up and have a voice. Their concerns were that there would be resistance to the movement and a lack of ‘togetherness’, and that it would require a very strong person to lead this movement. Specifically, they were concerned that the volume of the resistance to change would be louder than the excitement.

• VidaFoo’s table:

The table members were in favour of the recommendations, but also want answers that will probably take longer than today. They are looking for a common goal to all work towards. They felt the lord has given us a clean slate to work towards a future and are looking forward to discussing how we can make it all happen.

• PeterBaker’s table:

This table was feeling positive, that there needs to be a change and it needs to be a big bang, and will require a big person. They also noted that we need to look out for those who fall off the edges. Before the 90s, GWUC used to be in two different buildings and was two different denominations - we have solved big problems in the past, and that again we may require short-term pain for long-term gain. Their concerns included – where do we go after the interim review is over, how is the queue of ministers waiting to come here looking, do we need assistance from presbytery? Peter also noted that we don’t know what we don’t know – how can we resolve this? That this will require prayer. He also asked: Are there lay and paid ministry options we can explore for the future?

• FayeWagon’s table:

The table was generally positive about the report – they found some life-giving parts, they are encouraged by the proposed congregational meeting structure, the missional group opportunities, but had concerns about setting age limits on council – what about gender, race? Where does it stop? They felt there could be a need for less words and more action, and for more transparency at GWUC.

• AndrewAdams’ table:

There was a bit of confusion about the proposal, they are happy for change, but would like clarification on how this will happen.

• RobinAnderson’s table:

The table was concerned about how we got here and how we are going to move on. Will the cause still be there, and if there isn’t strong leadership will problems continue? Do we need more listening and humility? They felt the recommendations reflected their opinion. While the changes are dramatic, they have hope. They felt the present structure hasn’t been working for a while, and that the mission groups will continue elder’s work, applaud that, and look forward to a new start. That we should value people and respect people more – everybody should be heard. In terms of pastoral care, they were concerned that the correct person needs to be allocated to that role. They also celebrated positives like the Hub and leisure time. The table felt the new structure will empower in all areas of the church, and that we have to move on and embrace change. In particular, mentoring the young ones is essential, and that we should encourage the young to walk into the future in the way they see, not just in the way older people see the future.

• JennyVass’s table:

The table affirmed the report and appreciated Carolyn’s affirmation of the good things at GWUC, but acknowledge there are things that require change also. They also honour Greg’s decision, and feel that we need to move forward and acknowledge his decision. In the formation of the new council, we will need to take time to find the people with those skills to fill each role. That people need to let go of the tags and realise that their roles can continue without the tags. They also appreciated that the person the presbytery appoints to GWUC will need to be a strong person and will make or break how we go in moving forward.

• BillMorgan’s table:

We are at last recognising there are problems in the congregation, and the table had hope that the problems can be solved. They raised the point that there has been lots of discussion on organisation, and very little on the development of the spiritual life of the congregation.

• MarkEaston’s table:

They expressed positive sentiment towards the report and had talked through some of the issues. At the table they had heard stories of 10 and 20 years ago where there were similar problems, and now appreciate that this is a very important moment in time – we should grab it. They were concerned that those with roles that have been affirmed by the congregation will need to be supported during these changes.

• GeraldineFleming’s table:

The table felt some confusion, but that the new structure sounds positive. They noted that young people have always been welcome on the council, and they look forward to seeing them in the future.

• AndrewHosking’s table:

The table felt this process could be life-giving, that there was potential for change in structure, that hurts have been outed, and were happy that so many people were present at the meeting. Their concerns included that history may repeat itself, that we would have identification of conflicts within the congregation, and they knew that whatever leader is appointed, that person will require great strength.

• KatieHunter’s table:

The table was very positive about the way forward and the report, and excited that everyone can be affirmed in their own witness and how they are serving God. They felt positive that all ages are going to be welcomed at council and anxious about a leap of faith going forward.

• JoyGray’s table:

They raised the concern that given the large numbers of elderly, would home visiting roster be reinstated?

4.3. Life and Witness Consultation Recommendations

Greg Crowe summarised the recommendations and noted that the only change is the make-up of the church council, in terms of numbers and the emphasis of what the council does. The life and witness is at the heart of the missional groups, that is where the action happens. The many wonderful things going on as a result of these missional groups are obvious from the material on the notice boards all around the church. Greg emphasised that the mission groups do not change in these recommendations. On the issue of pastoral care, Greg stated that the recommended new church council should make sure this is happening, but this may be implemented by the pastoral care task-group, which can have others helping in what has been the elder’s role in the past. He felt that the life and witness report showed that we need spiritual oversight role at church council, and by looking at this change in direction, we are giving attention to what we need to give attention to.

4.3.1. Greg Crowe proposed the reception of Carolyn’s report

The motion was seconded by many and passed by consensus.

4.3.2. Greg Crowe proposed recommendation 1.

That GWUC recognise that the roles of Church Council is first and foremost spiritual oversight and leadership.

The motion was passed by consensus.

4.3.3. Greg Crowe proposed recommendation 2. a)

The Congregation meeting to be held in July elect 10 confirmed members who will form a Church Council along with those in approved Presbytery Placements and up to 2 co-options as required in the regulations.

(Having replaced June with July in the original proposal)

A show of cards indicated support, but several questions were raised:

Chris Drummond asked why 10 people was chosen – is there a particular reason, raising the possibility of drawn votes, and also asked if this will be discussed at the congregation meeting in July. Greg answered that it should be addressed now and that a key goal was to try to contain the total number of councillors. Including the three placed ministers, there would make 13 councillors, and with 2 co-opted members, there would be 15, also noting decisions would be made by consensus, not majority.

Rewa Feenaughty noted that Carolyn had suggested that other numbers would be ok, 10 was a starting point.

David Morgan asked if it was a good idea to take more time to make this decision. He felt it may be inappropriate to declare all councillors no longer on council and better to talk to each of them first. Warren Bartlett acknowledged the pastoral concerns of this, and proposed that if we wait until the July date to elect a new council, a steering committee could be arranged in the meantime to work towards this decision in July, talking to all members.

Warren Bartlett suggested that we pass a motion to set up a small steering committee that will look at a pastorally sensitive way of moving towards this election in July, that the committee could talk to the members of the council and find out their sense of call.

Bill Morgan asked if we do not need to set the number of councillors at this stage, and if we could simply decide the number in July.

Greg Crowe stated that it seems that people are saying that we want to make a decision for change today, and that this could be done with motions to ‘receive the recommendations’ and ‘affirm the intention of the recommendations to implement a council structure that is consistent with the spiritual oversight focus of the congregation, as outlined in the regulations”.

In preparation for such a proposal, it was noted that under 55s should be consulted by the steering committee. Graham Lockhart also raised the issue of life-time elders (who can continue within the UCA as an elder for as long as they wish) in the context of the recommendations. It was established that there is currently only one such elder in this congregation, and that he no longer wishes to act as elder.

4.3.4. Greg Crowe proposed:

The congregation affirms the intention of the recommendations to implement a council structure that is consistent with the spiritual oversight focus of the congregation, as outlined in the regulations.

Rewa Feenaughty received clarification from Greg Crowe that this does not affect further recommendations for today’s meeting.

The motion was passed by consensus.

4.3.5. Warren Bartlett proposed:

That the congregation set up a small steering committee that will look at a pastorally sensitive way of moving towards this election in July, in consultation with the church councilors, elders and the congregation. That steering committee will also deal with the implementation of the recommendations and how they will be brought to the congregation for approval.

The motion was passed by consensus.

4.3.6. A Way Forward

Warren Bartlett nominated Brace Bateman as a chair for this steering committee, and this was strongly affirmed by a show of cards. Brace was not present, so Warren will talk to Brace and come up with a set of names for the rest of the committee for next Sunday.

Bill Morgan suggested that before each service we should gather and pray in silence for the life of this church, for those people who have been given responsibility today and for those who are directing our movement forwards, for the presbytery and for one another. He also suggested that card could be placed in the pews to help direct the prayers. This was strongly affirmed by the meeting. Warren further suggested that each person present today take the names of the people on their table and pray for them.

The meeting thanked Greg Crowe and Ron Townsend with applause.

5. Conclusion

The meeting concluded by singing the doxology and saying the grace together.