Skip to main content

Results of the Executive Committee election

Here are the folks elected to the first ever General Assembly Executive Committee:

Jennifer Atkinson
Dawn Buckle
The Rev Stephen Dick
Dorothy Hewerdine
Neville Kenyon
The Rev Ann Peart
Sir Peter Soulsby
The Rev Robert Wightman

They will take office at the Annual Meetings in April.

First, let's say what's good about this. The General Asssembly Council, a body universally thought of as too big and completely ineffectual, and a body that people dreaded serving on, is being abolished. The Unitarian General Assembly structures are changing in the most dramatic way since 1928, and that shows a community that is prepared to make some changes, which is heartening.

There are 4 women and 4 men. This is good. There are 3 ministers and 5 laypeople. I think that's about the right proportion.

However, the people elected to the EC are definitely the usual suspects. The form is new, but the people are old faces. Several of the people above have served on the Council. I suppose that's understandable for the first administration as a transitional body. I know I voted for a usual suspect and didn't take any risks. Hopefully in 3 or 6 years people (including me) might want to take some risks, and vote for people with radical change agendas.

The turnout for the election was 66.4%. Better than the turnout in the 2005 General Election which was 61.3% but still far from a number to be proud of.

Now the issue of the number of people on the electoral role, a question I asked here and an issue that Boy in the Bands talks about too.

The number is 2563.

This is an absolute minimum number of Unitarians in Britain. There are more, but any other number is going to be an estimate. We can only know for sure that there are more than 2563 Unitarians in Britain. Jeff Teagle says 4000. But this is still less than the figure of 6000 that I've always heard being knocked about. I think this may have come from George Chryssides in his 1998 book, The Elements of Unitarianism, but I don't know for sure. If that is true then are we to assume that the number has dropped from 6000 to 4000 in 8 years? Are we losing 1000 members every 4 years? Does that put our extinction at 2022?

These are rough numbers, but I think it's worth putting it in such stark terms. If we continue doing what we're doing we'll be dead in 20 years. Is that enough of a reason to do something radical?

Comments

Anonymous said…
Well, we clearly aren't replenishing our numbers fast enough to prevent decline; hopefully this fact will focus the attention of the incoming EC.

As to the turn-out, if you conduct an election without electioneering, I'd say a 66.4% turn-out was high. Not having had (or particularly wanted) a vote myself, I've no idea if people were encouraged to slip a cheque in with their ballot paper - an opportunity wasted, if not...

It will be interesting to see what the correspondence columns of The Inquirer make of it. My prediction that it would be little better than a census seems to have been borne out - four of the eight are from one region (the North-West) - and (perhaps more worringly) six of the eight are "cradle" Unitarians.

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