The Glen Waverley Uniting Church PSALTER
Proposal for New Structures at Glen Waverley Uniting Church
A proposal to be put to the congregational meeting on 1 Jul 2013.
Preamble
Recognizing that
- 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 identified a significant "dissonance" in the affairs of the congregation;
- 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;
the Future Directions Steering Committee now having concluded its deliberations, proposes that Glen Waverley Uniting Church adopt the following resolutions:
Guiding Philosophy
Dissonance, Community of Love, Journeying forward in Acceptance and Affirmation.
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 church governance has been the formal injunction, the committee felt that to address just that would be futile unless the dissonance issues were also addressed.
We have chosen to name this process of restoration as "Building a Community of Love". While we recognize that many groups already reach a deep level of fellowship, what is required is more than fellowship. We need to establish deeper and greater levels of trust in each other, such as is exemplified in 1 Cor 13:4-7. That cannot happen without a deeper sharing of the human hurts and hopes that we all experience. We need to be honest with each other about what really bugs us, and what we truly seek. 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 in this place rather than be concerned about our personal preferences.
What the SC therefore proposes is 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).
Comment (ME): I would like to see a recommendation around increasing the number of people participating in faith sharing or learning groups. Personally I don't care whether it is Alpha, discussing a Borg-Crossin book or considering the lectionary, or a personal life sharing group or how often it meets. I think that everyone should be personally offered to be a part of such a group. This would be a fantastic objective for the Faith Development missional group to take on. A target could be to have 30% of the congregation actively involved.
Comment (MF): I agree with the formation of cross-age "cell groups" as both faith formation and pastoral care opportunities.
Comment (ajh): I don't disagree, but these ideas have not been discussed by Steering Committee, and I am reluctant to include something along these lines without explicit acknowledgment of the committee. How exactly would you frame such a recommendation anyway?
Comment (BL): Do we need an acknowledgment that small communities of love do already exist within the congregation?
The Church Council
The one explicit recommendation arising from the ChurchLifeAndWitness consultation was that the size of the Church Council should be reduced. There was a feeling that the council had not been discharging its duty successfully enough to create the right atmosphere of spiritual leadership and governance. That this was a reflection of comments received by Carolyn there can be no doubt - however, it was not necessarily a view held by councillors, who had been discharging what they saw as their duties to the best of their ability. Given the difficulty in getting people to nominate for council, it was not seen by council that the congregation was all that unhappy with its performance. COMMENT (MF) I suggest we remove the last sentence above, as it does not add to the spirit of the proposed transition and may become a self-fulfilling statement for the future!
Nevertheless, the Steering Committee has endeavoured to hold true to the brief that it was to find ways of implementing in "a pastorally sensitive way" 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.
Comment (MF): Should stress cooperative relationship with Ministry team for vision and growth.
Comment (ajh): Greg Crowe has outlined another strategy: that the Congregation can simply elect a new Council to replace the old one. End of Story. But we need to discuss this.
Recommendation 2: 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
The responsibilities of Elders and Councillors. The opportunity for all to share in worship and pastoral tasks. The new worship rosters.
COMMENT (MF) Not sure if this belongs in the Proposal, but asap after July 1st, all existing and "on hold" Elders need to be individually surveyed to ascertain which current duties and rosters they are prepared to continue with and which new activities they may feel called to act on. May be best if this was done in a face-to-face context.
What happens to existing Elders.
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 support in the transition to the proposed new groups structure will be valuable.
- NOTE - when I looked at the above 'What happens to existing Elders" bit, my response was very much the same as in the above section - do you think it needs repeating here? I know the above is a bit repetitive- I am sure that with your assistance it will be edited, reworded, and made to sound more professional in line with the resot of the document! Belinda
The Mission Groups
COMMENT (MF) Let's be consistent - Are they Mission Groups or Missional Groups?
ajh: "mission" is the noun, "missional" the adjective, so strictly - "missional". However, nouns can be used as quality adjectives (sic joke), and you did say to use "accessible language" ...
Focus for day-to-day running of the church; tasks are delegated from the Council; at least one councillor and ministry team member per group.
COMMENT (MF) We should be including a separate heading for the 3 Admin groups here, and saying one councillor per group for them too.
Each group is free to find their own administrative structure.
Each group will have a designated budget.
COMMENT (MF) Would prefer "Each MG will have a designated budget and recognition of other resourcing needs." (eg volunteers, property use)
The Logistics Groups
Property, Finance and Communications
The Ministry Team
COMMENT (MF) Perhaps could consider another heading "Ministry Team" or "Minister/s of the Word" to spell out some of what we have discussed re their improved relationship with church council, and increased link with Missional Groups. This is a way of ensuring that each MG is resourced with spiritual leadership.