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: 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.
The Church Council
The key concept: a smaller council focussing upon spiritual leadership and governance; deal with regulations and constitutional issues here.
COMMENT (MF) Should stress cooperative relationship with Ministry team for vision and growth.
What happens to existing councillors.
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.
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.