|
|||||
|
BOARD PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE
In my December President’s Message, I mentioned that Rev. Alicia asked the Board to read a very short but challenging book by UU consultant Michael Durall, and I offered two contrasting visions of church life taken from the pages of that book. Those of you who attended church today, December 12, will have heard Rev. Alicia refer to UUCE becoming a Public Church. The descriptions I offered you last month correspond, more or less, to a public versus a private church. A private church focuses almost exclusively on the needs and wishes of its members. It is inward focused. A public church, on the other hand, while not ignoring the needs of its members, focuses attention and resources on the community beyond its walls, not just the community within them. A public church expects commitment, not consumerism, on the part of its members. UUCE has taken a few steps on the road towards becoming a public church. Once a month, we give our offering to an organization, usually local, which exemplifies our UU values. Last year, after years of discussion and planning, we made the deliberate decision to leave our comfortable, peaceful wooded setting for a more centrally located, more visible, more accessible and less private setting. And now, a substancial number of our members and friends are working to transform the building we purchased into our new church home and, in the process, receiving as much or more than they give, as they, we, experience a new dimension of building community. At our December Board meeting, with much-appreciated guidance from Rev. Alicia, we affirmed our commitment to the vision of UUCE as a public church and provided the Committee on Congregational Ministry with the broad outline for a new mission statement which will reflect this commitment, and will also be easy to remember and, we hope, inspire others to want to join with us in the fulfillment of our mission. I am sure you will be hearing more from both the Board and COCM about this in the coming months. At its next meeting, the Board will begin to discuss necessary steps on the road to providing UUCE with a governance structure that is better suited to a growth-oriented church with hundreds of members and a lot going on. And we will also be turning our attention to stewardship, which is an essential part of our plans for the future. We are looking forward to an exciting and challenging new year, which will see us leave our comfortable and familiar surroundings for the new church home we are working so hard to prepare. Working together, forgiving the occasional misstep and assuming the best of intent on the part of others when misunderstandings arise, we will rise to the challenges that face us during this next year. Mary Otten At its November 11 meeting, the UUCE board chose governance and leadership development as its priorities for the remainder of this church year, and quite possibly beyond. Also at that meeting, Rev. Alicia distributed several copies of a short but very challenging book entitled “The Almost Church Revitalized” by Michael Durall, which she encouraged us to read as background for our December discussion of the role of the board in a church of our size. One significant result of governance and organizational change will be a more well-defined answer to questions of responsibility, authority and accountability for all areas of church life. As Durall says, our challenge is to change from a top-down structure to a bottom-up, permission-granting, team-oriented model centered around the spiritual giftedness of our members. Another outcome of successful governance change will be that the board will have the time and energy for more “big picture” thinking.” We will be able to engage in more outcome- and mission-oriented discussions with program and other church leaders, rather than concentrating on the details of day to day church operations. There is, naturally, a lot of focus on the reconstruction of our new church home. Pretty much everybody who spends even a small amount of time there comes away astounded by the scope of the undertaking, and those who are participating in the work comment repeatedly on the extra special feeling that they get as a result of their participation with others working on this project. But with all the excitement and enthusiasm surrounding the work on the physical space, let us not forget that the building is not the church. The building will provide us with a more central location and a much larger space than we have now. But it is up to us to decide how we want to use that space and how we want to be seen in our much more visible new location. Here are a couple of contrasting excerpts from Michael Durall’s book. Many church members may perceive no need for the congregation to seek a future that is appreciably different from today. … In many congregations, members enjoy the preaching, the music, the fellowship, the coffee, the church's programs, their kid's Sunday school, participating in a book discussion group, and being part of a short-term outreach project from time to time. Preferably, all this doesn't cost very much and isn't too inconvenient. The church meets their needs.” For congregations that have little motivation to widen their vision or challenge members to a higher calling, the fundamental question becomes whether contentment is a valid goal. UU minister Julie-Ann SilbermanBunn believes that hotels and day spas are in the satisfaction business, but congregations are not.
She further suggests that people harbor a misunderstanding of religious life. They come into churches and sit down in the same manner as they enter restaurants or concert halls, like spectators coming to enjoy what is prepared for them, what is served up for their senses. What are your thoughts on this topic? Mary Otten
I want to focus on a method for achieving consensus in a group which has its roots in Ignatian spiritual practice and is used by the Jesuits. This technique was briefly described prior to being demonstrated by a group of congregants from our host congregation in Salem, as they grappled with the question of whether or not to institute other worship opportunities besides the one Sunday service they now have. This is a facilitated process leading to consensus, not a debate with a vote at the end. The process is marked by periods of silence, both before each segment and between speakers. All group members are expected to disclose their feelings about the issue, as well as their thoughts and reasons why they believe as they do. And, what was most interesting and instructive for me: all participants are asked first to give reasons against the proposal and then, following a silence for reflection, to give reasons for the proposal. This encourages deeper listening and openness, as each one strives to see all sides of the issue. It fosters a feeling that “we are in this together” rather than an adversarial win-lose situation. After all comments have been received, and there has been time for reflection, each participant is then asked to state his or her position on the issue and why she/he holds this view. The facilitator looks for areas where consensus seems to be building and also notes areas where there is still difference, summarizes and states this back to the group. The demonstration group we witnessed achieved a consensus after one round of discussion. Thus, we did not see a demonstration of how the facilitator would have proceeded if there were still areas of difference. The facilitators did emphasize that consensus does not necessarily mean unanimity. In the end, there may still be people who do not agree with the prevailing view. But they trust the process, see that they have been heard and consent to the decision, even though they may still have reservations. This process may take longer than a traditional debate. Even though our exposure to this method of reaching a decision was quite brief and of necessity somewhat superficial, I found the idea of all participants deliberately working together to see both sides of the question and then striving to reach consensus without win-lose argument positively liberating! I do not know if UUCE will use this or one of the other consensus-building techniques described by the workshop facilitators. But the possibilities are exciting. Mary Otten On Saturday, September 11, the board of trustees of UUCE held its annual retreat. Such meetings usually focus on goals and plans for the upcoming church year. This one was a bit different, in that it was also our “start up workshop” with Rev Alicia Forsey—our first opportunity to begin getting to know each other and begin a discussion of a wider range of subjects than are usually touched upon at these retreats. We were fortunate to have Pacific Northwest District executive director Janine Larsen as meeting facilitator. Janine introduced us to the 3 different types of leadership thinking, fiduciary, strategic and generative, also called adaptive, and then asked each of us to note how we see the board acting most of the time. The first two types can be thought of as “technical”, with a problem/solution orientation, whereas the generative type encourages looking for new ways of seeing a situation. Instead of asking: how can we solve this problem? It encourages us to ask: what opportunities exist now that didn’t exist previously? What has changed that requires a different approach? Are we asking the right questions? All 3 types of thinking are important for a board, but it is clear that more adaptive thinking will be required of us in order to cope with the challenges ahead. We also started work on a UUCE timeline, which includes references to major world events, milestones in Unitarian, Universalist and UUA history and, of course, major events, ministerial arrivals and departures as well as conflicts in our own church history. Janine encouraged us to flesh out this timeline with our “history keepers” and use it to discern patterns which influence our church culture in the here and now, even though some of us on the board, and many more in the congregation, are relatively new to UUCE and are personally familiar with only a fraction of our church’s history. With all this going on, it probably won’t surprise you to learn that we didn’t get through the very ambitious agenda. Translation: I am not prepared to give you a list of the 3 top goals that the board intends to accomplish this year. We have a good start towards understanding what we expect of each other, but we still have much work to do on clarifying expectations regarding ministerial authority and responsibility and mutual accountability. We need to rebuild the relationship of trust and remember always to assume the best intentions and motives on the part of each other when misunderstandings arise. And of course, we know we need to find a governance and management structure that will work for us now and after we’ve moved into our new church home, where we will have room to grow and serve in different ways than we have previously. I am beyond amazed at the amount of energy and work that so many are contributing to make our new church home ready for occupancy by next fall. As the physical preparations continue over the next several months, we must also engage our minds and hearts in the work of discernment and analysis that will enable us to be good neighbors once we have moved in and ensure that we are prepared to welcome a diverse population of new visitors whom we want to welcome and encourage, so that they may find a home at UUCE, and become part of our “tapestry of love we call community”. Your Board President, Welcome to the start of another church year! This one looks to be exciting and challenging, what with working on the new building, planning for the move and thinking about changes that we may want to make to our programs, coincident with the move. as if that weren't enough, this is also the start of our 2-year interim ministry with Rev. Alicia Forsey. Interim ministry offers us a wonderful opportunity, with the assistance of a trained and skilled professional, to do the things we need to do, so that we will be well prepared to call a settled minister 2 years hence. Interim ministry is definitely not a "place holder" period in between settled ministries. The interim minister carries out the tasks one associates with a settled minister, such as Sunday worship, working with program staff, pastoral care etc. But the real gift an interim minister can offer is assistance to a congregation in dealing with and owning its past, assessing its strengths and areas where it needs to improve and helping it discover its identity and mission as it prepares to move aheadwith a new settled minister. Here is what the UUA's handbook on interim ministry says are the special tasks with which an interim minister can assist a congregation:
I imagine that one or more of these tasks strikes a strong chord witheach one of us. For instance, those of us on the board are particularly eager to get moving on #3 above. Yet we also know that there are other important priorities, and that both we and Rev Alicia have finite amounts of time and energy to call upon. Let us go in to our interim time with an attitude of openness to new discoveries about ourselves and our congregation, a willingness to change when change is needed and the wisdom to forgive ourselves and each other for the inevitable missteps that are a part of any complicated collaborative undertaking. And let us not forget to have fun while we work! Finally, I want to inform you all that as of September 1, we will have a new treasurer. Our newly elected treasurer, Amy Siddon, has had to resign, as she will be moving to Portland with her partner as soon as their house sells. In accordance with UUCE bylaws, the board has appointed John Wagner to fill Amy’s post until the next regularly scheduled election of officers, which will take place next April. Your Board President, |
•
|
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||
