Unitarian Church Leadership

[tcpip]

I've spent a bit of time over the past couple of weeks as a candidate for chairperson for the Melbourne Unitarian Church. It wasn't an easy decision; the current chairperson is a convivial chap and has a fair knowledge of the subject matter. But he's also been in that role for a very long time, and, it must be said, he has been less than effective at dealing with some real problems that the place is facing that have been raised time and time again for years on end. It became very clear to me that nothing was going to change unless the leadership changed.

The reality is that the Church is stagnating or declining on all metrics one cares to mention (except for website visits). Membership is aging and declining - the "electoral roll" is a mere 47, down from over 60 when I first joined and average attendance at services is around 25-30. There is no effort at all to bring in new blood, and least of all young people - indeed, there is active discouragement. The content of the overwhelming majority of services and the Church journal is largely indistinguishable from a left-wing political club, making even the purpose of the place completely redundant. The organisation is too top-heavy with a maddeningly inefficient bureaucracy and a tightly controlled concentration of power. Over the past three years the Church has recorded constant financial losses and a decline in equity.

I've gone into all this in my election material for those who want more information on the dire straits the organisation is in, along with some very achievable, measurable pledges of my own. Alas, I do not have soft-copies of the rather hostile and personal responses, which are overwhelmingly based on defending the bleak financial record, with the particular the claim that depreciation isn't an issue as it is just a 'paper loss', a claim, I must confess, simply astounds. Mostly however, I cannot fathom what the incumbents stand for. More of the same? It'll become a race to see who dies first; the incumbents or the organisation - and nothing will be left for the future.

Comments

[zey]

Good luck with the election, I do believe you'd be a very positive and effective chair for the organisation.

I'm actually a bit surprised an organisation like a Unitarian Church would be losing membership in this era. The fundamentals are so strong: the Internet's open forum nature is such that the large number of people who are agnostics and atheists (or at least, skeptical of organised religion) know they're not alone.

The one thing about the religious I do quite envy is the way their churches are really organised when it comes to both community/charitable activities and social gatherings for getting their singles mixing. If you manage to get the Unitarians even halfway there, you'll have done a tremendous job.

[ninboydean.livejournal.com]

Good luck! Just because capitalist finance isn't a "just" system doesn't mean the church can ignore it. Sounds like that's what they're arguing - what they're missing is that the church will be the only loser with its membership of course) for as long as they think "paper loss" is irrelevant.

[pache.livejournal.com]

Best of luck with your campaign, looks like a very worthwhile attempt at reform.

[zenicurean.livejournal.com]

Change like that is always good; I wish you the best of luck!

[direwolf23.livejournal.com]

You said my name! ...Sort of. :P

I hope that you're successful in your coup. Being a good person isn't always enough; especially when you have the existence of an organization weighing in the balance. I hope you reinvigorate this group, and get people of all ages and backgrounds interested and excited about what you can offer them.

[sebastianne.livejournal.com]

Good luck! It sounds like change really does need to occur, and while it might make you unpopular initially with few people, in the long run they will hopefully see the good intentions and very reasonable strategic thinking behind your campaign :)

[brockulfsen.livejournal.com]

I've noticed groups in Australia do this. I'm not sure why. They get closed and xenophobic.

Up side is that it tends to limit Evengelical Christian groups, as they develop a stable core group then bunker down.

[a-carnal-mink.livejournal.com]

Best of luck, good sir.

[kremmen.livejournal.com]

I've seen many clubs/groups/societies in Australia have problems of declining membership and stagnation. In almost every case, the underlying issue was that the old guard were running things because of a sense of obligation and could not find anyone who wanted to take the time and effort to take over and run with it.

Your current leaders are idiots. When facing that problem and someone competent comes along who is prepared to do the work, the sensible reaction would be to embrace you and thrust you into the position before you have a chance to change your mind!

sorry to hear it

[wanton-heat-jet.livejournal.com]

It's too bad you have no choice but to run.

My late wife found us a big, active Unitarian congregation, but even there it's a lot of old white liberal activists.

[scandalous-dave.livejournal.com]

I read your essay. Sounds a lot like the United Church of Christ congregation I'm a member of, which however is explicitly Christian and not Unitarian Universalist. A place for left-wingers to meet on Sunday to keep up the good political fight. A church for people who don't really like religion but who think they should go to church on Sundays (and even call themselves Christians) in order to be thought of as proper citizens.

I read the "election material". What I saw there was a re-emphasis of the purpose of church as political action, not the addressing of the importance of religion in informing our lives. A real disappointment.

I don't fit well in conservative churches because I reject religious superstition and demand honesty in matters of religion. Liberal churches usually are not a very good fit because they mostly have little interest in religion and are all about leftist political action, whereas I have great love for religion as philosophy and basic education on how to live as an intelligent being. Although I am not against politics, the Big P has very serviceable venues outside of church whereas the Big R does not. So in church my disinterest in politics and my critique of its inadequacies marks me as a fringe element.

I would suppose that most folks who visit a church are looking for something they hope that religion can provide, and if what they find there is 1960's leftist politics and little in the way of religious substance, they walk back out (as well they should). Take religion seriously and do it in a way that doesn't replicate what people left other churches over, and people will come and stay, that's my theory anyhow. I have been saying this at the UCC where I am (was?)a member and was finally told by the minister to shut the heck up. To her it's all about getting the right programs in place, twisting the right arms, all that religiously empty evangelical church renewal-through-marketing stuff. So, I'm outta there, I don't go to church for the purpose of engaging the minister in a power struggle.

Leaving was tough, because I taught Wednesday evening Bible class and there were about 5 people who loved it and stuck with it, not because anyone was beating them over the head, but because the open-minded way in which we did it opened a whole new world for them. They were very disappointed when I announced I was leaving, and I hated having to disappoint them. But, as I explained, if I'm not attending church on Sundays any more, it arguably ain't right that I should continue teaching the Wednesday evening Bible class (which was about a whole lot more than just the Bible! It was also about religious history and other religions.)

So now I'm unchurched and will probably stay that way. I'll probably drop in and visit the UU congregation now and then where I was a very active member for several years and have friends, and where several years ago I left for my own reasons, not because anybody told me to take a hike.

--Dave J. in El Paso, USA