Skip to main content

Wow - ambitious leadership from the Executive Committee

I just received this message on Uni News (which anyone can subscribe to, by the way) with a very strong message from the national Executive Committee of the Unitarian General Assembly:

The Executive Committee, having considered the responses of the “Difficult Choices” consultation with the wider Unitarian Movement, agreed the following strategic priorities for the work of the General Assembly. These strategic priorities set the framework for a range of innovative activities to be implemented over the next three years which will require change in many areas of our work as we focus on what makes a difference at congregational level. These are currently in development and further information will be circulated when the plans are finalised.

General Assembly Strategic Priorities
Our Goal: Sustainable and thriving Unitarian and Free Christian communities.
Our Aims: To benefit our communities by:
• encouraging and supporting leadership at local level
• developing Ministry within the denomination
• raising the visibility of the Unitarian movement
• improving the services to the movement provided by staff and volunteers
Our Objective: over the next five years is to become a thriving and increasingly visible liberal religious community throughout Great Britain.
• We will increase our membership by 20%
• We will increase the number of qualified and active Ministers to at least fifty
• We will ensure that all Unitarian congregations can have access to professional Ministerial or recognised lay leadership and support
• We will ensure that all volunteers have access to training and support




This is the most ambitious thing the Executive Committee has ever come out with. It's really good to set actual testable goals, and I've been asking them to do this for a while. The next question of course is how do you actually get 50 active ministers and 20% growth? What are the actions that try to achieve these objectives? These are good questions to ask.

Comments

Daniel Costley said…
Real vision, measurable and appropriate objectives. An aim to benefit all in the movement, not just a niche group. This is such good news.

You are right Stephen that there are further questions to be answered. The roadmap to 2015 will be challenging and frustrating, and there will be too many who claim 'we've tried before and it didn't work'. I suspect there are a number of paths we can and should follow - one size will not fit all. But for the sake of our present and future communities, we should pull together to help the movement meet these aims.
It is wrong to be pessimistic, but I think the 20% growth will not be achieved. The 50 ministers would mean another 10 paid for vacancies opening up. Candidates are less of a problem as we can import them if we need to.

I'm not sure how committed we really are to growth outside congregations that are already growing. Perhaps I'm just tired already.
20% is very ambitious. It's certainly something we would intend to achieve in my congregation, though. Which is only average attendance going from 31 to 37 and membership going from 55 to to 66. I would hope that would be achievable. But we are a reasonably sized congregation with a full time minister and lots of able people and a good attitude.

But to average 20% over all congregations, including dozens of congregations with less than 20 members and no money, and no leadership. That is pretty difficult.
Andrew Bethune said…
I entirely agree with the aim of increasing our visibility. This can only be done by having somthing going on in our churches that people outside want to hear about and join in with. We all have to ask ourselves: how can we do that for our local congregation?

Leadership doesn't have to mean ministers. I hope that 'developing ministry' means enabling the 'ordinary' members to participate in ministry. Sometimes I think that ministers have de-skilled their congregations.
"Leadership" doesn't, and shouldn't mean just Ministers. However "Ministry" in this context I think does. If Ministers have de-skilled their congregations, that's the exact opposite of what they should be doing.
I'm a bit confused my the Minsiters' one now. I've just counted 52 qualified, non-retired Ministers currently residing in Great Britain. That includes about 5 who do not currently have a ministry, but as they are still on the Roll, they theoretically could. I'm not entirely sure what they are counting.
Yewtree said…
Hi all, I have asked Derek to expand on how he thinks the new objectives can be achieved in his article for the November issue of The Unitarian. Letters & articles are welcome in response.

In my view, one way to achieve growth is by every Unitarian explaining Unitarianism to all their friends (and on the internet if able to do so) in the hope that one of them might be interested in joining.

But the churches that the new people turn up to must be spiritual, connected, vibrant, and serving people's needs. (NB I am not talking about consumer spirituality.)
Anonymous said…
HOW?

One word.

Popular posts from this blog

Radical?

When I started this blog nearly 4 years and nearly 300 posts ago one of the labels I used for it/me was "radical." Perhaps I used it a little unreflectively. Recently I've been pondering what radical means. A couple of things have made me think of this. Firstly this blog series from my friend Jeremy, which explores a distinction between "radical progressives" and "rational progressives." There is also this definition of radical, liberal and conservative from Terry Eagleton quoted at Young Anabaptist Radicals : “Radicals are those who believe that things are extremely bad with us, but they could feasibly be much improved. Conservatives believe that things are pretty bad, but that’s just the way the human animal is. And liberals believe that there’s a little bit of good and bad in all of us.” What interests me is finding a way to express the tension I feel sometimes between myself and the wider Unitarian movement. One way to express this is to say I tend

What does it mean to be non-creedal?

Steve Caldwell says "The problem here isn't humanism vs. theism for theist Unitarian Universalists -- it's the non-creedal nature of Unitarian Universalism" This is a good point. We need to think much more deeply about what it means to be a non-creedal religion. The first thing I want to say is that there is more than one possible understanding of non-creedalism. The Disciples of Christ are a non-creedal church, they say here : " Freedom of belief. Disciples are called together around one essential of faith: belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Persons are free to follow their consciences guided by the Bible, the Holy Spirit study and prayer, and are expected to extend that freedom to others." Quakers are also non-creedal and say here : Quakers have no set creed or dogma - that means we do not have any declared statements which you have to believe to be a Quaker. There are, however, some commonly held views which unite us. One accepted view is that th

What is Radical Christianity?

Radical Christianity is about encountering the God of love . It is first and foremost rooted in the discovery of a universal and unconditional source of love at the heart of reality and within each person. God is the name we give to this source of love. It is possible to have a direct and real personal encounter with this God through spiritual practice. We encounter God, and are nourished by God, through the regular practice of prayer, or contemplation.  Radical Christianity is about following a man called Jesus . It is rooted in the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet living under occupation of the Roman Empire two thousand years ago. It understands that's Jesus' message was the message of liberation. His message was that when we truly encounter God, and let God's love flow through us, we begin to be liberated from the powers of empire and violence and encounter the  "realm of God" - an alternative spiritual and social reality rooted in love rather th