Proposal for New Structures at Glen Waverley Uniting Church

A proposal to be put to the congregational meeting on 1 Jul 2013. An Executive Summary is available at ChurchFutureScProposalExecutive.

Preamble

Recognizing that

• our congregation is seeking to worship, witness and serve our God in a faithful and life-giving way which looks to express hope for the future as well as honouring the past;
• there have been difficulties within the Ministry Team for some years, culminating in the early resignation of Rev Rosemary Carter in Jan 2013;
• a Church Life and Witness consultation was conducted by Rev Carolyn Kitto for the congregation with the approval of the Port Phillip East Presbytery in late Feb 2013;

• at a congregational gathering on 3 Mar 2013 to hear the report on the Life and Witness consultation, it was announced that Rev Greg Fry would be concluding his placement at a date to be determined (subsequently established as 30 Sep 2013, with a Cutting of the Ties service on 30 Jun 2013).

• at that congregational gathering, Rev Carolyn Kitto reported two persistent themes in her interviews with congregational members: (1) a significant "dissonance" in the affairs of the congregation, and (2) a need for structural change to improve "Spiritual oversight and leadership";
• a meeting of the Congregation on 17 Mar 2013 decided to adopt in principle the recommendations of Rev Carolyn Kitto, as written out by Presbytery Chair of Pastoral Relations Committee Rev Greg Crowe; and
• a Future Directions Steering Committee was established by that congregational meeting to propose a detailed implementation plan of the "in principle" recommendations;
• many congregational members have made formal and informal submissions to the Future Directions Steering Committee;
• change takes time and courage, but may be very positive and inspirational, and

the Future Directions Steering Committee now having concluded its deliberations, proposes that Glen Waverley Uniting Church adopt the following resolutions:

Guiding Philosophy

The Steering Committee took as its most critical brief the restoration of a harmonious congregation. This was in response to both CarolynKitto and GregCrowe identifying that many issues of "dissonance" within the congregation have caused the congregation to falter on its way, and along with them, the Ministry Team. While restructure of spiritual leadership and church governance has been a necessary part of this process, the committee felt that this alone was futile unless the dissonance issues were also addressed.

We have chosen to name this process "Building a Community of Love". Many groups already reach a deep level of fellowship, but what is required is more than fellowship. We need to establish deeper and greater levels of trust and kindness for each other, such as that explained in 1 Cor 13:4-7 and Eph 4:29-32. That cannot happen without a deeper sharing of the human hurts and hopes we all experience. We need to be honest and open with each other. Without sharing that vulnerability of each, we cannot possibly know or harmonise with each other. Most of all we hope to develop respect, empathy and tolerance with others' points of view so we can learn to support those who have different points of view than us and to participate in God's mission rather than be concerned about our personal preferences.

To encourage development of our Community of Love, the SC therefore proposes that

• Recommendation 1: All church groups, recognizing the importance of intentional worship, set aside 10-15 minutes of group meeting time to participate in a) deep personal reflection and sharing of concerns; b) interactive and reflective group bible study, such as is used in lectio divina. (Need reference, link here).

• Recommendation 2: Every member of the congregation be encouraged to belong to a faith sharing and pastoral care group. Particular emphasis should be on developing cross age groups. Such groups would meet at a time to suit them and oversight would be through the Faith Development and Inclusive Mission Groups.

The Church Council

One explicit recommendation arising from the ChurchLifeAndWitness consultation was that the size of the Church Council should be reduced. "The Church Council would have 10 elected members plus ministers in placement and up to 2 co-options. All elected members would be Elders. These members would be elected after a process of discernment and prayer for identifying and calling of them for their gifts of spritual oversight and leadership." She also urges us to elect more younger members to Church Council. Whilst it is clear that the current councillors have been doing their duties to the best of their abilities, Carolyn suggested a fundamental change of focus for the church council, away from being business driven to being faith formation and mission driven.

The new council will take on the spiritual leadership of the congregation more strongly than it has in the past and most of the business of the congregation will be given to the groups that are carrying out its mission. This will help overcome a number of issues within the congregation including permission giving, a move to a more strongly faith-based community, building on the relational community that already exists at GWUC. It will also refresh and focus the cooperation between the Ministry Team and the Church Council.

The Steering Committee has endeavoured to hold true to the brief that it was to find "a pastorally sensitive way" to implement the recommendations and "how they will be brought to the congregation for approval". This means addressing how we are to move from a Council of 23 elected members to 10 elected "Elders and Councillors", and in concluding the terms of the existing group of 35 Elders.

The fundamental difficulty has been that (as pointed out by several members of the congregation) the UCA Constitution and Regulations allow no mechanisms for concluding the terms of existing councillors and elders in toto (there are mechanisms to deal with transfers, resignations and discipline, but these are not applicable in this context).

The preferred mechanism identified by the Steering Committee is to ask all existing councillors and elders to accept these recommendations, and in that spirit, voluntarily resign from Church Council and the Eldership. We recognise that there are those who will not feel called to this action, and hence we need to suggest an alternative pathway for such people. The suggested pathway is that they serve out their terms, participating in the administrative and worship life of the church as they feel called, and that we move gradually to the situation of having one Church Council of 10 elected "councillors and elders", and no separate Elders' Council. The roles of existing elders would be taken over by a variety of new worship and pastoral support teams (see below), whose membership would be open to all church members.

The role of the new Church Council would be, as the Regulations state (3.1.2(a)): The Church Council shall give priority in its life to building up the Congregation in faith and love, sustaining members in hope, and leading the Congregation to a fuller participation in Christ’s mission in the world. This priority shall be reflected in the agenda of its ordinary meetings. The Regulations go on to state (3.1.2(b)) in more detail the specific duties, but the detail of these is not relevant here.

• Recommendation 3: That the congregation proceed to call for nominations for the 10 elected members to the new church council, and that elections be held in time for the new council to take over responsibility from the existing church council from 1 Sep 2013. Existing Councillors will be asked to voluntarily stand down from the council, unless elected as councillors from 1 Sep 2013. A service of thanksgiving to be held early in Sep 2013 for those councillors voluntarily standing down. (Need reference, link here).

A proposed timetable setting out the details of the dates involved is at ChurchFutureScTimetable.

Eldership

Eldership is an important role within our Congregation, and in coming into line with the regulations, our understanding of it will alter. Within the proposed structure, the Church Councillors will be holders of the title Elder as well as Councillor. Understandably, a congregation with the breadth and depth of ours needs the loving support, nurturing and involvement of more than 10 individuals. Our congregation will still require pastoral care, people to welcome Church goers (new and existing), to visit, to serve Eucharist and to love and support members of our congregation and our community.

Those who currently undertake the formalised role of Elder will be asked to stand down - from the title, not the care, the love and support which goes along with it. And we will need more individuals to take on elements of the roles which were formally part of the Elder roles as defined by GWUC - caring for our members.

If you are a current member of the Council of Elders, you will be asked to resign this position if the proposed structure is approved. Your continued involvement with the duties of the Elders will be appreciated, and your enthusiasm in the transition to the proposed new groups structure will be valuable.

• Recommendation 4: That the congregation acknowledge the devoted service of the many elders called to serve at Glen Waverley since Union, and recognizing the need for a clear spiritual direction for the church, approve the new identity of 10 joint Elders and Councillors from 1 Sep 2013, and encourage all existing Elders to voluntarily stand down as elders (unless elected as new councillors and elders), and transfer their service roles to the new worship and pastoral task groups. A service of thanksgiving to be held early in Sep 2013 for those elders voluntarily standing down.

The Mission Groups

The Mission Groups take over responsibility for much of the day-to-day running of the church. While this is officially part of the council's responsibility (see Regulations 3.1.2(b)), the new Church Council will delegate such powers to the Mission Groups as is necessary to discharge these responsibilities, thereby freeing Council's time to focus upon the spiritual leadership vision. This has been a stumbling block to the current Council, and is the main motivation for Carolyn's recommendations to reduce the size of Council.

Carolyn recommended that each Mission Group have at least one councillor as a member of its coordinating committee, and this Steering Committee agrees with this proposition. The Coordinating Committees will have oversight of all the sub-committees under its aegis (see below for discussion of Task Groups), and will have budgetary power to allocate resources to these task groups. It is recommended that each coordinating committee have a member of the Ministry Team attached to it, who will have primary responsibility for coordinating ministry engagement with the mission area. Other members of the Ministry Team may also be members (see below for Ministry Team resource allocation guidelines).

It is understood that as we link all existing GWUC groups to the Mission Groups, hence these Groups may expand and change in their operation. Mission Group convenors will be key lay leaders and will need significant mentoring and support as we transition into the new structure. It is suggested that training be provided to these lay leaders.

The ministry team would be represented on each Mission Group to provide spiritual oversight and leadership. All members of the congregation and especially retiring Elders and Church Councillors will be encouraged to volunteer for a range of church programs and duties to enable the Mission Groups to achieve their Christ-centred goals.

Each group is free to find their own administrative structure, but will report to Church Council through their Church Council representative.

Each group will have a designated budget and recognition of other resourcing needs(eg volunteers, property use).

• Recommendation 5: That the congregation adopt the new governance structure transferring day-to-day management of church life to the four Mission Groups: Faith Development, Inclusive Community, Community Hub, and Outreach.

The Task Groups

The Task Groups drill down on the various responsibilities of the Mission Groups, and will report directly to the Mission Group coordinating committees. The task groups are as identified as in ChurchFutureScServiceGroups to be (the list is not definitive):

• Holy Communion Team
• Welcoming Team
• Prayer Team
• Pastoral Team
• Stewardship Team
• Confirmation Team
• Music Team
• Spiritual Growth Team
• Fellowship Team
• Hospitality Team

These and other groups will take over the day-to-day responsibilities previously assigned to Council, and now delegated to them through the delegation from Council to the Mission Groups. The reason for this two level process is not to compilcate matters, but to recognize that the size of the tasks is beyond the resources of a single committee. This two level structure, most importantly allows all members of the congregation to take part directly in the missional work of the church.

Council will delegate the appropriate responsibilities to these groups (through the responsible Mission Group), and each group will call members of the congregation with particular gifts in these various areas to service within the groups. Previous Elders, for example, would be expected to follow their calling into the Communion, Welcoming, Prayer and Pastoral Teams as per their preferences currently recorded in the EldersRosterPreferences wiki page.

• Recommendation 6: That the congregation endorse the list of task group teams as above (and as subsequently updated by Church Council), and calls upon all members of the congregation to join at least one of these teams so that all members shall be seen as servants of the community.

The Support Groups

A church of Glen Waverley Uniting Church's size has a large investment in the assets needed to maintain its mission life, and it is appropriate to have dedicated groups to manage the church's property, finances, and communication processes. Each of these has its own legitimate call upon church resources, and must be resourced appropriately. The responsibilities of each of the Support Groups will remain much as it is at the moment, viz Property Committee, Finance Committee and Communications Committee, subject to any new direction from the Church Council.

• Recommendation 7: That the congregation affirm the continuing need for the current responsibilities of each of the Property Committee, Finance Committee, and Communications Committee, and asks each of them to review their operations in the light of these new church structures, and any new directives from the new Church Council.

The Ministry Team

Each Mission Group must have at least one ministry team member associated with it, and one member is to be identified as the primary ministry team support person for the group. The primary Ministry Team member would be normally expected to attend all meetings of that Mission Group and to have a spiritual leadership role in the group. Each Ministry Team member engaged with a Mission Group is to nominate the number of hours per week (total 40) allocated to each Mission Group, and the budgeted stipend will be allocated pro rata against each Mission Group.

The Ministry Team are all members of Church Council, but it would normally be the case that only one Ministry Team member need attend, unless there are special circumstances. This is identified as a mechanism to ease the meeting time load upon the Ministry Team. This nominated council member would be expected to actively liaise between Council and the Ministry Team, to ensure a consistent and cooperative approach to the mission and vision of the church.

• Recommendation 8: That the congregation requests the Ministry Team to identify amongst themselves their time allocation to each of the four Mission Groups, and to nominate the primary Ministry Team member for each Mission Group, and for the new Church Council.

Procedural Comment

The Steering Committee has thought very deeply about the matters raised in this proposal. We do not feel that the church has the option of picking and choosing amongst the recommendations. If we are indeed to move forward, then all recommendations need to be adopted simultaneously. While this recommendation is not meant to exclude minor adjustments of words, we counsel strenuously that to detract from the intent of just one of these recommendations may prejudice the whole vision.

There is also a question of how these new structure transitions are to be managed. We feel that this is appropriately the responsibility of the new Church Council, and hence we recommend as a blanket provision that all future visioning, strategy planning and transition management be the responsibility of the new council.

We therefore add this procedural recommendation:

• Recommendation 0: That these recommendations be taken en bloc and voted upon as a single group. The new Church Council is to take responsibility for all subsequent management and implementation of these plans beyond 1 Sep 2013.

CategoryChurch