Losing My Religion (and finding another)

[tcpip]

Unitarian elections were as expected on Sunday, with a significant victory to the Marxist-Lenninist faction (yes, this steeple-jacking really did happen and the same people are still in control), who were trotted out for their annual vote. More disappointing was the decision to vote down a proposal to introduce proportional representation, which cements an wilfully exclusionary attitude. Amusingly, they now have a treasurer who doesn't believe that the organisation needs a budget (following a c$60,000 loss last year). As one more neutral member has observed in a classic understatement, "the church has governance issues" (including classics such as bikeshedding). Same person also suggested that I am better off putting my energies in an organisation where they can actually have some effect, rather than having any attempt to change or initiate being blocked as it perceived as a threat.

Indeed I had come to the same conclusion prior to the meeting, and will be directing my energies instead towards the Uniting Church, specifically St. Michael's Church in Melbourne where the executive minister, Dr. Francis McNab, has advocated the sort of ecumenical and liberal religious perspective that I would be comfortable with. They have a much better idea of financial and organisational management, a much larger congregation, and overall a much larger national grouping (albeit they have a more orthodox and Christian viewpoint overall, but I am accepting of that). I will of course, keep my subscription to the Unitarians, because that is where my orientation lies, but I seriously cannot see any chance of the existing group even considering reforming themselves before their life reaches its historically inevitable conclusion.

Ultimately it does give rise to the need to avoid organisations whose leaders have irrationalisible ideologies, as they will always prone to intransigence and reject good ideas on the grounds of that ideology. Larger and less ideologically-driven organisations are better as they are used to dealing with diversity within their group, they understand the need for a fair distribution of power which recognised participation. Most importantly they have the organisational intelligence to work out what actually constitutes a good argument. Doctrinaire ideologues can never understand this. They will always fail a test of intelligence because they have ideological blinkers. This said, I am surprised (and impressed) by the number of regular congregation members who have contacted me to express their frustration at the events. Perhaps it also time for them to find a new home.

Comments

[carlowe.livejournal.com]

Every committee is going to be the same to some extent. Is why I steer clear these days.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

I have to confess, having spent a little bit of time on said committee several years back, that this was probably the most exhausting I have experienced from the multitude I have been on. There were no standing orders (although the chair has improved significantly in an informal manner in this regard over the years), and most irritating there is very little in the way of standing procedures or policy. So each and every item of correspondence is evaluated at each committee meeting.

It is most inefficient activity imaginable. Every case becomes a special case, with the worst possible level of opportunity cost. It is little wonder the organisation struggles in effectiveness when all the time is spent in meetings!

Perhaps the committee members are secretly Aos Sí, and are actually immortals who have a different concept of time to mere humans.