Fellowship or Ministry?

[challupa]

Hi there, I'm wondering is anyone would like to tell me what kind of a Unitarian Church they belong to. The church in the city I live in is in the middle of getting a new minister and the old one has not left yet. However, she has put forward a recommendation that anyone who wants to join the church needs to fill out a 2 page document and then it is voted on by the board whether the person is an appropriate person to become a member. This got passed by the board at an annual general meeting. The membership is livid and say it is very un-unitarian.

Next problem, the church has a search going for a new minister. Many feel that they can't afford a minister and would like to see a fellowship instead. So I would like to hear from those who are in fellowship churches to see how they feel about them. Also if you are in a ministry church, why do you prefer that? I have heard from people in this group that lived in Houston, that there is a great fellowship church there. If anyone is a part of that church, what do you think of it?

From what I can gather from the members of this church, it is a move that they absolutely think is absurd (paragraph 1) and some are thinking of resigning. Others are saying that they think that's why it was done, to get rid of people the board didn't want. It seems to go against the principles of Unitarianism, so would love your input on what these new rules would do to your gatherings. The reason was put forward "so that we can prevent a hostile takeover". No one knows what the heck that means, but that was what the minister said when asked about the new rule of voting on membership approval. Thanks for your thoughts on this.

[Storm]

I'm in a ministry church, and I love it. I think it's a huge benefit to the congregation to have people fully devoted to our spiritual needs, without having to balance it against an irrelevant 9 to 5.

Now, as for the larger issue. My knee-jerk reaction is to agree with the congregation's outrage, but before I pass judgment, I'd like to hear more of the board's side. Can you tell me anything else?

[challupa]

Originally Posted by Storm

I'm in a ministry church, and I love it. I think it's a huge benefit to the congregation to have people fully devoted to our spiritual needs, without having to balance it against an irrelevant 9 to 5.

Now, as for the larger issue. My knee-jerk reaction is to agree with the congregation's outrage, but before I pass judgment, I'd like to hear more of the board's side. Can you tell me anything else?

From what I can understand from one of the board members that opposed this, they wanted to pass this because they need to control who joins the membership. I don't know alot about it, but when the minister was asked why, that was when the "hostile takeover" comment came out. The question is, "What hostile takeover" and what are they talking about. There were 10 out of 60 that voted that spoke out against passing this and they did so quite vocally. However, it passed. There has been a trend lately by the church to exclude some members from having say in certain things. For example the secular humanists in the membership are feeling like they are being excluded from things. Other than that, I don't know of any other reason they have passed this. I don't belong to the church, but do attend some functions and so this is more a curiousity on my part as to how other churches in other communities operate.

[Storm]

Is there a publication or anything detailing the arguments available online?

Since I rather doubt that, I have to say I disapprove. I'd be livid, too, if my church pulled a stunt like this.

[challupa]

Originally Posted by Storm

Is there a publication or anything detailing the arguments available online?

Since I rather doubt that, I have to say I disapprove. I'd be livid, too, if my church pulled a stunt like this.

There is nothing online that I know of. However, it is going to be discussed again at the next "small group" on May 28th and the board member that attends and leads these groups will be there with a copy of the board decisions and why. What I mostly wanted to understand was if there was anything like that out there amongst the other churchs that says the membership has to be passed and approved by the board.

[Storm]

Never heard of such a thing. In ANY church, much less UU.

The more I think of this, the more it ****** me off.

[challupa]

Originally Posted by Storm

Never heard of such a thing. In ANY church, much less UU.

The more I think of this, the more it ****** me off.

Well that was certainly the response yesterday at the small group that met. It is a group of older members that can't make it to church very often but are able to meet in an elderly lady's home. It was the first time they had heard of the decision and they were all quite disturbed by it.

[Storm]

It also strikes me as in violation of the Third and Fifth Principles:
3) Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations
5) The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large

3: This sort of rank exclusivism is anathema to the principle of acceptance. Who decides who's "worthy" of the church, and what are the standards? Doctrinal? Political? Conformity/ popularity contest? None of those are justifiable, and I can't think of any others. It strikes me as ripe for exploitation.

5 is dodgier, they seem to have stayed within the letter of the "law," but if the congregation objects as you say, they violated the spirit.

[challupa]

Originally Posted by Storm

It also strikes me as in violation of the Third and Fifth Principles:
3) Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations
5) The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large

3: This sort of rank exclusivism is anathema to the principle of acceptance. Who decides who's "worthy" of the church, and what are the standards? Doctrinal? Political? Conformity/ popularity contest? None of those are justifiable, and I can't think of any others. It strikes me as ripe for exploitation.

5 is dodgier, they seem to have stayed with in the letter of the "law," but if the congregation objects as you say, they violated the spirit.

Well that's the thing. Who gets to decide? I thought I finally found a religion that was open to everyone and was quite excited about that. I am not thinking of joining, but it did help me realize that not all religions were exclusive. Now I'm not so sure. I am willing to wait and see. By the reaction of the members, it seems that this particular "bylaw" is an anomaly. Thanks for your insights Storm

[Storm]

Were I you, I'd wash my hands of this congregation, but I'm also glad that you recognize it for the anomaly that it is. Every group has its bad apples, and it sounds like someone's on a power trip.