Feedback on Direction 3: Support fit-for-purpose governance arrangements
This Direction was also generally supported, with people affirming the need for greater flexibility in local governance and administration. Many affirm that the compliance and administration obligations of local Congregations have become onerous and that support from the wider Church is required. As one community put it, “We would welcome anything that will lift the burden of governance.” The idea of greater clustering received support, whilst recognising there were some similarities between this and the parish concept which was phased out following decisions of the 1997 Assembly.
There were a range of concerns expressed about the implementation of this Direction. Some were concerned about managing differences between Congregations sharing a common Local Council. Some were concerned that the idea of the wider Church taking on responsibilities may disempower local Congregations. There was some interest in the idea of people from the wider Church being appointed to Local Councils, but also some concern about the scope and purpose.
Many were able to identify and describe how fit-for-purpose governance arrangements had been implemented in their own context, with both the benefits and challenges. Some were unsure how this approach would apply to certain contexts, particularly rural contexts. Some were concerned that greater flexibility may mean Congregations diverge from the theology, values, polity and ethos of the Uniting Church as a whole.
While not directly addressed by this Direction, the issue of our constitutional and regulatory arrangements for church membership continued to arise. The gap between our church law on this important issue and the reality of our life in local communities needs to find a resolution. This will likely require considering constitutional change.
“We feel very strongly that a one-size-fits-all approach is holding back the potential of the Congregations of the Uniting Church. In conjunction with the overduplication and under-resourcing of the many councils that constitute the Uniting Church, this has led to frustration, burnout and fatigue, and is resulting in reduced ability to resource our ministry and mission. Fit for purpose governance and greater support Options offered by Area Councils may go some way to remedying this.”
Church Council Response Form
“This depends on sound principles – compliance to a number of regulatory principles is necessary. Simplicity is not our highest principle – we need to be flexible for missional and congregational life purposes. We need to be really clear on articulating our values to give direction – then seek flexible ways to live out these values in a range of different situations.”
Synod Response Form
“Our Congregation favours flexibility, however, we need to ask ourselves: ‘Is the system driving us or are we driving it?’. We have numerous examples of how our local engagement is bearing fruit, pretty much unsupported by other structures of the church other than glowing praise. We need functional support, but at the same time we are worried about whether this ‘appointing people’ is genuinely feasible.”
Church Council Response Form