Newsflash: Steve Dick appointed as CEO

Message sent out on the general GA mailing list:

The GA Executive Committee is pleased to announce that the Reverend Steve Dick has been appointed as Chief Executive. Steve will commence work for the General Assembly on 1 March 2007 for an induction programme. Steve will take on the full responsibilites of Chief Executive from the present General Secretary, Jeff Teagle, at a hand-over ceremony on the last morning of the Annual Meetings in Hatfield on 13 April 2007.

My thoughts:

Steve Dick is London District Minister, an American, a member of the Executive Committee and that's about all I know about him.

Presumably he's going to resign from the EC. The Chief Executive can't also be a member of the EC, surely?

Some people have said to me (not in relation to Steve Dick specifically) that it's a waste of a minister's talents to have this kind of job, which is essentially a senior administrative position.

I'm still not entirely sure about the significance of the change of title from General Secretary to Chief Executive.

Any thoughts?

PS I am breaking this story before it's on the official GA website, which in itself is worthy of note. When is that website going to get more active?

Comments

Anonymous said…

Well, having seen him in action, all I can say is that in my opinion Steve Dick is very talented as a minister, and so in that way will be a loss in an largely administrative role. Nevertheless, I congratulate him and wish him well.

11:30 pm

Drop the Free Christian!

Let me preface what I'm going to say by first saying this: I am a Christian. It's taken me a long time to be able to say that, and to know what I mean by that, and I'm very lucky that in the Unitarian church I have been given the space to come to that decision in my own time, on my own terms. But I am a Christian, I'm more Christian now than I have been for years. Now: I want us to drop this "Free Christian" from our title. It's a silly phrase that we need to get rid of. Why? "The General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches" is a long and unwieldy title. It would be much better if we traded under something like "Unitarians in Britain." It gives the impression that there are two separate and distinct groups: "Unitarians" and "Free Christians," this is not the case. It's not that there are Unitarians (who are not Christians) and "Free Christians" who are not Unitarians. There are not two dif...

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...

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...

Reignite

Search This Blog