6

In Service of the Gospel
Ordering our Life

Option Comparison Charts

Below are charts outlining the comparative responses to the four Options outlined in Section 6 of Act2: In Response to God’s Call. The data for each Option is then presented individually.

A reminder that the four Options are summarised as follows:

• Option 1: Four councils of the Church are reduced to three – Local, Field and National.
• Option 2: Four Councils, with a large Regional Council and a smaller National Council.
• Option 3: Four councils with larger National and Area councils, and Regional councils to administer property trusts.
• Option 4: Four councils, with a resource-sharing mechanism administered by the National and Regional councils.

This data represents responses from 223 discernment groups representing 2,028 participants across the Church Councils, Synods, Presbyteries and the Assembly:

• Church Councils (115 discernment groups, 1,080 participants)
• Presbyteries (39 discernment groups, 428 participants)⁵³
• Synods (63 discernment groups, 499 participants)
• Assembly (6 discernment groups, 21 participants)⁵⁴

The definition of the three responses was as follows:

• Supportive, generally warm to this Option
• Open, open to this Option with questions or concerns
• Not supportive, generally cool to this Option

For more detail on the source and analysis of the quantitative data please see Chapter 1 Considering Afresh: Introduction.

Feedback on Option 1: Four councils of the Church are reduced to three—Local, Field and National

Option 1 received the highest level of support of all the Options. It was the Option to which councils were most open, with Church Councils and Presbyteries expressing the most support.

Responses affirmed the following aspects of this Option:

• It is seen as bold, courageous, imaginative and meeting the moment with the scale of change that is required of the Church.
• The reduction of duplication between councils.
• A stronger national council, particularly in encouraging unity and promoting a stronger public voice.
• Reducing duplication through sharing certain administration functions for greater efficiency.
• Locating administrative support in Field Councils closer to local Congregations.

Responses expressed questions and concerns about the following:

• The cost and effort of transition was the greatest concern.
• The disruption and potential to lose expertise which currently resides within councils (particularly Synods).
• The legacy, power, resources and role of Synods was seen as a significant impediment to implementing this Option.
• This concern was related to the cross-jurisdictional implications, loss of state-based expertise and the implications for the property trusts.
• Ensuring the National Council and the Field Councils were not too remote from each other and from local Congregations.
• There were questions about how different contexts would be accommodated including Congress, CALD Communities, urban and rural communities.

Generally, people were attracted to the outcome of Option 1 while acknowledging the effort required to get there. People who were supportive of this Option were not naïve to the effort required to achieve this Option, however they affirmed that in the end it would be worth it. The greatest level of support for this Option came from Church Councils. Those that were least supportive of this Option were generally those that would be most impacted by the change. They were concerned that the effort required would NOT be worth it, that it would distract the Church from ministry and mission and prove more costly and less impactful than hoped.

“While we acknowledge this Option is the most challenging of the Options presented, we feel it is the simplest, most agile and most suitable for the future of the church. It is bold and ambitious, but we feel significant change is needed if Congregations and communities of faith are to be able to fulfil their mission/s and remain relevant. We must be brave and take risks to meet future challenges. We feel this Option has the best opportunities for change.”

Church Council Response Form

“Transitioning to this will be complex, and time-consuming.  There are state legislature implications and state-by-state differences in systems that will be costly and complicated to streamline.”

Church Council Response Form

“Do we have the capacity to give up power? Not sure we have that capacity, it’s hard and it hurts.”

Synod Response Form

Feedback on Option 2: Four Councils, with a large Regional Council and a smaller National Council

This Option received the lowest level of support of all the Options. It was the least preferred Option from Church Councils, Synods and the Assembly.

Responses affirmed the following aspects of this Option:

• Locating administration with the Regional Council and freeing up Area Councils to be focused on ministry and mission.
• Locating administration functions in the Regional Council was seen to simplify the liaison required by Local Councils on administrative matters.
• Some were supportive of a smaller National Council with more limited responsibilities.

Responses expressed questions and concerns about the following:

• The most common concern about this Option was the impact on the Church’s public voice. A small National Council combined with the authority of Regional Councils to speak on public issues was seen to diminish and splinter the Church’s impact and voice.
• This Option was seen as having a detrimental impact on national identity. The size and strength of the National Council was generally seen as important for unity and identity.
• The authority of Regional Councils to make regulations was not widely commented upon, however those that did saw it as undesirable. The most compelling argument was that it would inhibit further structural change over time.

Generally, people were cool to the overall concept of Option 2. At its core it appears that the imbalance of responsibilities between the councils was a significant factor in the lack of support for this Option. Responses indicated a desire for a balance of responsibilities, resources and therefore power. It was seen as exacerbating some of the existing cultural and relational weaknesses of the current situation without delivering significant benefits.

“Importance of having a strong unified national body and how we speak into a rapidly secularising Australian public. If the National Council is shrunk then the authority of the President to make public statements is weakened. Idea of Regional Councils speaking separately into the public arena seems really confusing and lessens our impact.”

Synod Response Form

“I am particularly concerned that the Regional Council is dealing mostly with administration and yet is also the public voice of the church. I believe that this would run into difficulties with mission being adversely affected by an emphasis on administration. The staff of each Council would have little to do with one another on a daily basis. It is not good for the more powerful Council to be skewed toward property and finance with its underlying paradigm that can clash with the missional paradigm.”

Individual Submission

“…in the Congregations and communities where I have participated and served, the Assembly voice has been the most damaging and destructive force in the life of the church… So reducing that may not be such a risk.”

Individual Submission

Feedback on Option 3: Four councils with larger National and Area councils, and Regional councils to administer property trusts

This Option received the most mixed level of support of all the Options. It was not really anyone’s most preferred Option nor anyone’s least preferred Option.

Responses affirmed the following aspects of this Option:

• It was seen to focus on providing more support to Congregations through strong Area Councils.
• Those that value the work of the National Council affirmed that this Option strengthened that council.
• It was seen as being more pragmatic than Option 1 and removed some of the barriers to implementation, particularly around the management of property.

Responses expressed questions and concerns about the following aspects:

• The explicit decoupling of property management from ministry and mission.
• How the two regional councils would be decided, and concern that issues of property would be managed remote from local councils.
• Those concerned about a strong National Council and its remoteness from the local context particularly highlighted that risk in this Option.
• That the culture-bearing role currently held by Synods might be replicated in the two Regional Councils (despite their narrow mandate) and that cultural influence would cover vast geographies of the country.
• Questions about whether this was a significant change.

Generally, this Option was seen as either a second-best option to Option 1, or a stepping stone towards Option 1. For that reason, there was an openness to it for people who preferred Option 1. Some supported it on a pragmatic basis where they believed the amount of change required to achieve Option 1 was simply too great. The prominence of the role of the property trusts raised the vexing and contested issues of property more in this Option than in others.

“This is our second choice after Option 1. Having a body focused on property is good but could be part of the Field Council rather than in isolation.”

Presbytery Response Form

“We are concerned about the equitable distribution of resources across the whole Church under this model. The Property Trusts need to respond to the needs of the Church and resourcing the mission.”

Presbytery Response Form

“There was a general feeling that this model was a more practical/achievable version of Option 1. Some preferred Option 1 but recognised this may be easier.”

Presbytery Response Form

Feedback on Option 4: Four councils, with a resource sharing mechanism administered by the National and Regional councils

This Option received a mixed level of support, with Church Councils and Presbyteries generally not supporting this Option while Synods and the Assembly were more supportive of this Option.

Responses affirmed the following aspects of this Option:

• It is seen as manageable and achievable for parts of the Church that are tired and worn out.
• It causes least disruption to the status quo for parts of the Church relatively satisfied with the current situation.
• The concept of a joint funding mechanism has an appeal.

Responses expressed questions and concerns about the following aspects of this Option:

• Many saw it as too close to the status quo and therefore not addressing the scale of the challenges the Church faces.
• Some people hope that structural change can be a lever to drive cultural change. This Option was seen to not provide sufficient leverage.
• There were many questions about how the joint funding mechanism would work in practice. It was seen by some as a recipe for conflict. While theoretically it could provide funding for parts of the Church where there is need but not resources, the who and how of the resource allocation process was not clear.

Generally, there was little enthusiasm for Option 4 reflected in the qualitative responses. It was seen as an incremental approach to address what most respondents saw to be far-reaching systemic challenges. Some even saw it as an initial starting point to much more substantial reform. The phrase ‘status quo’ was consistently used along with scepticism that an idea like the joint pool of funds could translate from a good idea into reality.

“We are least supportive of this Option. It basically retains the status quo with just one change. This will not solve the problems we are currently facing.”

Church Council Response Form

“This seems to be mainly ‘keep the current arrangements, but tweak the capacity to manage resourcing’. We need to do more than merely preserve the current structure. We need to be brave in embracing a new future!”

Synod Response Form

“This Option is close to what we know and is achievable in a time frame of 3 years. We affirm the idea of the administration of a joint pool of funds.”

Assembly Response Form

Fulfilling Our Ethical, Legal and Social Obligations

As a Church, we need to maintain our commitment to fulfilling our ethical, legal and social obligations. The Act2 team has continued to hear the challenges the Church faces in seeking to fulfil our obligations. The five draft principles we proposed in Act2: In Response to God’s Call are a helpful set of principles to guide how we fulfil our obligations in whatever direction we take in the order and shape of our common life.

Principles:

As an expression of God’s call and will for our life we will fulfil our ethical, legal and social obligations guided by the following principles:

1. Enable healthy and safe ministry and mission: Fulfilling our obligations in a way that enables the kind of ministry and mission to which we believe we are called.
2. A consistent standard: Applying common standards across the Church and only varying where absolutely necessary.
3. Efficient administration: Administration which is focused on the simplest, lightest, most streamlined processes possible.
4. Proportionate to the risk: A risk-based approach to standards and administration, focusing effort and resources where there is the greatest risk.
5. Alignment of accountability, responsibility and capability: Assigning responsibilities and resources to maintain consistent alignment between accountability, responsibility and capability.

Next Steps

The breadth of responses we received to the various Options did reflect the breadth and diversity of the Church. The differences in context drove different priorities and imperatives in where change was required and how quickly it was required. However, through all those different perspectives, one thing was clear – people accept that change is required to our governance and resourcing model.

Our governance and resourcing model for the wider Church, which includes 40 councils (33 Presbyteries, 6 Synods and an Assembly), is not sustainable and we have found too many instances where it is hindering our efforts to serve the gospel and participate in God’s mission. While in many places the wider Church is making an important contribution, it is also very clear that there is both opportunity and an imperative for change so we might better serve the gospel and enter more fully into God’s mission. We believe that the ordering and resourcing of the wider Church should be shaped by the following Vision:

Sharing Our Life and Our Common Wealth: A network of deeply connected councils responding to God’s call to enter more fully into mission through healthy oversight of ministry and mission, celebrating our diverse and shared identity and being faithful stewards of our common wealth.

In light of this Vision, our long-term needs and the potential for a Kairos moment in which God might transform our life, the Act2 Project Steering Committee believes that a staged implementation of a three-council model (building on Option 1) is the best way forward for the Church. This would be a significant change in the way the Uniting Church orders its life and will require further work to assess and test the feasibility of this model. In order to ensure that the Church is able to move forward with a better governance and resourcing model the proposals in Chapter 7 also include assessing the viability of a renewed four council model to fulfill the Vision of Sharing our Life and Common Wealth.

Drawing from the experience of other churches that have undertaken significant change we are proposing a three-stage approach led by a Commission for Governance, Resourcing and Administration that draws its membership from across the life of the Church.

• Stage 1 Transition (July 2024-December 2024): This stage is focused on transitioning from the existing project approach towards the new Commission.
• Stage 2 Assess and Prepare (January 2025-June 2027): This stage is focused on progressing the Vision guided by the Principles through:
  • Conducting a feasibility assessment of both a three-council model and a four-council model.
  • Preparing proposals for the 18^th Assembly including a roadmap for implementation underpinned by a resourcing model.
  • Identifying other ways to fulfill the Vision and Principles which can be achieved between the 17^th and 18^th Assembly.
• Stage 3 Decide and Approve (July 2027 onwards): This stage would include decisions by the 18^th Assembly about a final model. These decisions would be followed by implementation and any necessary approvals by other councils.

Now is the moment to have the courage of our founders, stepping out in faith so we might be a more deeply connected church, exercising healthy oversight of ministry and mission, celebrating our diverse and shared identity and being faithful stewards of our common wealth.

Summary of Recommendations

Vision for Sharing Our Life and Our Common Wealth: A network of deeply connected councils responding to God’s call to enter more fully into mission through healthy oversight of ministry and mission, celebrating our diverse and shared identity and being faithful stewards of our common wealth. A Commission for Governance, Resourcing and Administration.To seek ways to more deeply connect across our councils so we can exercise healthy oversight, celebrate our identity and share our common wealth.Assessing the feasibility of both a three-council model and a four-council model consistent with the Vision and Principles.Developing proposals and a roadmap for implementation underpinned by a resourcing model. For more detail so the proposals and rationale in Chapter 7 Go Forward Together A Way Forward.

Imagine

Imagine a network of Councils with people who know, love and support all the diverse communities within their area. Imagine local communities of faith getting the support they need in areas of administration so they can focus on discipleship and mission. Imagine a network of shared administration hubs providing timely and efficient support to local communities of faith, councils, agencies and schools. Imagine a resource model which ensures that ministry in the remotest parts of Australia can be supported by our common wealth. Imagine the opportunity to unlock resources to invest in our newest communities, whether in metropolitan, regional or rural Australia. Imagine a national public voice connected across the country to local communities of prophetic activism.

Conclusion

There are many strengths in the life of the Uniting Church which we can further build on towards a life-giving and fruitful future:

• Our shared identity in Jesus Christ is expressed by a common set of markers expressed in the Basis of Union and our ‘instruments of unity’.
• There is a passion in the Church for local communities of faith to be focused on discipleship and mission.
• Capable and effective oversight, support and encouragement which helps local communities of faith be life-giving.
• There is an appetite and opportunity to strengthen our theological culture which includes finding shared spaces to grapple with both our shared theological convictions and our theological differences.
• There is an appetite and opportunity for deep and productive collaboration in the provision of theological education.

There are also parts of our life which are impeding a life-giving and fruitful future for the Uniting Church:

• Many of our local communities of faith are struggling to fulfil their responsibilities due to their size, capability and demographics.
• Our people feel tired and stretched. The model of many volunteer-led councils, committees and processes does not match our size and energy. We need to free ourselves from these burdens so we can focus on life-giving discipleship, ministry and mission.
• The current Regulations related to local communities of faith and their implementation are at times insufficiently flexible and impeding communities being life-giving and effective.
• The Church is still struggling to find ways to hold together our rich and diverse theological perspectives and create shared forums in which we grapple together with our theological differences.
• The current conciliar structure of the wider Church (40 councils: 33 Presbyteries, 6 Synods, 1 Assembly) is not sustainable and, in some places, not currently viable. Some councils are unable to fulfil their responsibilities, there is too much duplication and councils are not well connected to one another.
• We do not have a whole-of-Church resourcing model that ensures councils have the resources they need to fulfil their responsibilities. This means that there is not adequate sharing of our common wealth. Some councils are in precarious financial positions while others possess significant wealth.

To have a faithful and fruitful future for the Uniting Church, we need:

• To orient our life and resources towards local communities of faith being focused on discipleship and mission.
• A new toolkit for more flexible fit-for-purpose local governance.
• Systems and processes for better beginnings and endings for communities.
• To review and renew our constitutional and regulatory arrangements for Church membership.
• A network for theology, formation and leadership including a national multi-campus theological college.
• A national structure to undertake further theological work on discipleship, evangelism and mission.
• Theological reflection on how to recognise our local service and justice work including consideration of the concept of ‘diaconal communities’.

• To seek ways to more deeply connect across our councils so we can exercise healthy oversight, celebrate our identity and share our common wealth.
• To assess the feasibility of both a three-council model and a four-council model.
• To develop a roadmap for implementation underpinned by a resourcing model.

Further details of these steps have been outlined in Chapter 7 Go Forward Together A Way Forward. This represents an integrated set of proposals for the consideration of the Assembly about how to move forward in response to the work of the Act2 Project. Chapter 8 Implementing A Way Forward outlines an approach and timeline for implementation.

These specific steps alone will not lead to a faithful and fruitful future. We need to continue to invest in our culture, including our theological culture. We will need to let go of things we hold dear so that we can go forward together. We will need to deepen our connection to God, one another and the wider world. We will need to die to self so that we can rise with Christ. We will need to focus less on what is ‘mine’ and more on what is ‘ours’ so we can share together in our common wealth. We will need to find the grace and commitment to participate in spaces with those with whom we disagree. In doing the systemic, structural, cultural and relational work required we can more faithfully be a church uniting with one another to participate in the mission to which Christ has called us.

Peter Walker and Chris Budden caution us:

“We institute the church in structures, and we constitute the church in motion. Both are needed. However, an undue focus on instituting the church in structures puts at risk our understanding of, and energy for, constituting the church in motion. The church is helped by stability, but it must have fluidity. Those spaces of fluidity are important for they are where the church event⁵⁶ happens.”⁵⁷ If in implementing new structures, systems and processes, we simply replace one rigid approach with another then we will miss the opportunity to embrace the precarious path God has called us to; where in the fluid and dynamic parts of our life God breaks in and points us again to the way of the risen, crucified one.

Pages: 1 2

»