Skip to main content

Executive Committee Elections

So the election is finally here. For the first time the leadership of the Unitarian Church in Britain is going to be directly elected by the membership. The name 'Executive Committee' sounds too coroporate rather than spiritual for me, but then I can't think of a better name myself, so I guess I can live with it.

23 people have put their names forward for 8 positions on the committee. The election is being counted by the Single Transferable Vote method. Don't ask me to explain it. But it means you can rank every candidate, so I think I'm going to. I think I'll vote for every candidate! I might as well.

I'm reading through the candidate's election statements right now.

The form says that the attributes of an 'ideal' Executive Committee member will be:

Understanding of Unitarianism; Leadership; Strategic Thinking; Communicating and Influencing; Decision-Making; Representing; Financial and Legal Awareness; Team Working; and Self-Management.

Fair enough, all that is important. But I find the statements that result from this guidance to be rather managementy. Yes, knowing how to run a meeting, and deal with financial and legal issues is very important. But I'm looking some spiritual leadership as well from this committee. We are a religion. And we need to remember that. Our reason for being is the deeper and bigger way of life of the Spirit.

What I'm looking for is someone who is:

Theologically and spiritually grounded; has vision for where we should be going; is orientated towards the service of others; and is outreach-orientated - wanting to make us change and grow rather than maintaining the status quo.

There's rather too little spiritual autobiography in the statements. But I think I've decided who to vote for. We shall see the outcome in a few weeks.

Comments

LaReinaCobre said…
I wonder if your transferable voting is the equivalent to our Instant Run-Off?

Popular posts from this blog

The dumbest thing about American Unitarian Univeralism

I'm glad Peacebang started blogging about this cos I was about to, and now it's like I'm joining in with a conversation rather than doing a big rant and having a go at Americans (though that is always fun ;-)). Why the hell do American (or is it just in New England??) UU churches take, like a quarter of the year off? In the summer they close. They CLOSE!! A church, closing. It's so bloody weird and wrong. Where does it come from? Why? Why? Why? Why do people need church less in the summer? Where are people supposed to go? Where is the Divine supposed to go? My church in Boston didn't close exactly, but moved to the smaller upstairs chapel, but the minister still had all that time off. Now I've spent most of my life around teachers and priests, both jobs where people think people don't put many hours in, when in fact they put in loads ('you only work Sunday mornings/9 to 3.25'). Teachers work hard and need their long holidays. Ministers work hard, a...

Is humanism theologically tolerant?

OK, well this might be controversial, but I feel the need to say it. Is humanist tolerant? Please note I'm not asking about humanism within society. Clearly humanism certainly believes in tolerance within society and I'm forever glad they are often the only people in the media calling for a separation of church and state. No, what I'm talking about is descriptions of Unitarianism like this and adverts like this , discussed at Peacebang here , which say that humanism is one option, Christianity is another, God is one option among many. The trouble is, humanism, by definition is theologically opposed to theism. This is very different from the relationship between Christianity and Buddhism. These two traditions may be vastly different, but Buddhism, by definition , is not opposed to Christianity, and Christianity, by definition , is not opposed to Buddhism. But humanism is consciously defined in opposition to Christianity and theism. So to say that humanism and theism can bot...

LOST and theology: who are the good guys?

***Spoiler alert*** I'm continuing some theological/philosophical reflections while re-watching the series LOST. One of the recurring themes in LOST is the idea of the "good guys" and the "bad guys." We start the series assuming the survivors (who are the main characters) are the "good guys" and the mysterious "Others" are definitely bad guys. But at the end of series 2 one of the main characters asks the Others, "Who are  you people?" and they answer, in an extremely disturbing way, "We're the good guys." The series develops with a number of different factions appearing, "the people from the freighter" "the DHARMA initiative" as well as divisions among the original survivors. The question remains among all these complicated happenings "who really are the good guys?" I think one of the most significant lines in the series is an episode when Hurley is having a conversation with ...