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

Swords into Ploughshares

  "They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." Isaiah 2:4 Palestine Action are doing just this: beating swords into ploughshares i.e. putting weapons out of use. In doing so they are fulfilling this biblical mandate. They are expressing God's peace as expressed in the Jewish tradition and the Christian tradition. God desires that our swords shall be beaten into ploughshares, that we should unlearn war. That the government wants to make this action illegal has to be confronted in the strongest terms. To rush to condemn attacks on weapons but not attacks on children is perverse. To call attacks on weapons terrorism but not attacks on children is perverse. When government comes to such an extreme position - legislating that peace is war, that weapons need more protection than children - then they have fundamentally gone wrong. This is the definitio...

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...

Clergy-wear during protests

OK, I'm wandering into the territory of Beauty Tips for Ministers here, but a couple of recent conversations have brought up the issue of what clergy should wear for protests. I know a number of Ministers who only wear clerical collars for protests. The logic is that it's important to identify as a Minister when you're supporting something society doesn't expect clergy to. So Ministers will wear a collar at gay prides or pro-choice rallies to make this point. Now I could understand this if it you wore a collar going about your general business, and also did during a protest, but I'm quite uncomfortable with the idea of wearing clerical wear ONLY for protests. The seems to be something worth exploring. I have said before that I'm not in favour of special titles or clothing for religious leadership, mainly because Jesus explicitly said this was a lot of nonsense. Religious leaders should not need these articial crutches. I have no problem with certain liturgical c...