I'd have to check your facts to see if everything you say is correct, but essentially I agree with your position - the United Church is too top heavy and too bureaucratic.

I've been arguing for sometime that - whether you like this or not (and I admit that there are advantages and disadvantages to it) -  the United Church is becoming increasingly more congregational in practice if not in formal polity. I think that since (in my opinion, anyway) this is inevitable, the United Church needs to facilitate this change and come up with a way of shifting resources to the congregational level rather than investing itself in maintaining an increasingly untenable bureaucracy. As a start ...

Get rid of Conference as a decision-making body. It's redundant and repetitive and irrelevant. Everything it does could be done by the Presbyteries. Have Conference staff simply work as General Council staff but now deployed as support staff to Presbyteries and congregations. Cut back the monstrous bureaucracies that some Presbyteries have become and have Presbyteries focus on what Presbyteries were supposed to do - they were originally in UCC polity intended to be the "bishops", responsible for oversight roles - oversight of ministry personnel (pastoral relations), congregations (pastoral oversight) and candidates for the ministry (education & students). In such roles, Presbyteries also facilitate (if they perform well) the work of congregations, rather than branching off into their own work. I have yet to figure out why Presbyteries felt the need to branch out into so much more. I know some Presbyteries that have a dozen or more committees! That's ridiculous. And stop the process of making people take multiple jobs simply because they have one job. I became Chair of Pastoral Relations for my Presbytery 3 years ago - and discovered that I had inherited 4 other Committee assignments as a result of that (only 2 of which I actually knew about when I took the job.) Frankly, I'm now burned out in respect to that job and eagerly looking forward to the end of my term in June when I can say "take this job and ..."

Others will have other opinions, of course. But that's my view.

I strongly disagree. The demands placed upon the church already by outside organizarions such as the CRA and so on barely allow us to keep our heads above water. Like all chuches, regulatory compliance is a huge issue. So is governance. We should be stripping program functions that we have historically held at the GC level (youth, rural ministry etc.) out of the GC level and retaining mandatory governance functions, including relationships with ecumenical partners.

Welcome to Toronto Conference. we have stripped away every committee and function of the conference as it existed and returned it to the presbytery. We also reduced the number of presbyteries from nine to four. There are two conference committees; Settlement and Interview. Staff are deployed to the presbytery with the exception of a finance officer, executive secretary and one admin staff. It works. And it's fun telling GC staff that "that function doesn't exist in this conference but has been deployed to the presbytery" over and over again.

Somehow I anticipated your disagreement, David!  And disagreement is good. It's the only way to provoke the necessary discussions.    In any event, my concern about bureaucracy isn't directed so much at the GC level (you'll note that I barely mention GC in my comments.) There are things that need to be done at a national level - including ecumenical relations, some aspects of international mission work, etc. My argument is more about unnecessary Conference work and bloated Presbyteries.

I anitcipated what you would say about Toronto Conference, as well. I know others in Toronto Conference who are less convinced than you that Toronto Conference has really accomplished much except creating bigger Presbyteries for the purpose of having more bodies to do the work of the Presbyteries - much of which work is add-on work to what the necessary functions of Presbytery really are. I do applaud Toronto Conference for vastly reducing the amount of work Conference does. I'd eliminate Conference altogether. Settlement can be done by the National Transfer Committee, or eliminated altogether by just putting all ordinands into the pot and letting them seek calls, and Interview could be done at the Presbytery level. Not under our current polity, I agree, but I'm arguing for a change in polity with respect to Conference. Again, though, I welcome the disagreement!  

Blessings, Steven

One of the key pieces undertaken as part of our restructuring of Toronto Conference was to review all the mandated functions of all courts. That review resulted in streamlined presbyteries, as well as conference functions. There is absolutely extraneous in the system now.

Settlment can not be done by the National Transfer Committee. That is not the committee's function. Change would require a remit, among other things, and more staffing. The system of seeking calls is already in place, with mixed results. I can say more in about 8 weeks.

Hi iThink,

Well, there is what things appear and there is what things are.  As DKS points out The United Church of Canada may not want to be of the world but we are very much in the world and because of that there are essential linkages that need to be maintained.  We also as a Church make decisions which force us to create new extra-church links and everytime we do that we are forced to add more staff to maintain those links.

That is factually untrue.  It may be factually true that most do not meet every year.  It is not factually true that none meet every year.  Even if it were factually true frequency of meeting is not the issue.  Work done is.

You know.  I hear the same argument, with slight variation, on the congregational level.  I hear congregations are in over their heads and Presbytery keeps wanting to be fed.  I also hear, talking with families, that individuals and families are in over their heads and the Congregation keeps wanting to be fed.

I don't know how to change any of that.  Unless it is for everyone at every level to face the music and start providing ministry that will fit into the available budget rather than providing a ministry and hope that the dollars needed to support that ministry will magically appear.

Grace and peace to you.

John

A few years ago, there was a remit to change the structure of the church. The proposal would do away with Conferences. It failed to pass, partially because the proposal lacked a clear picture of what the new model would look like.  Since the failure of that proposal, most of the cuts have been at the General Council level. It is as if it is the level that is being dissolved instead of Conferences. This is happening not as the result of an intentional plan, rather it is dying by a thousand tiny cuts.

Of course, I know all that. That's why I said I'm arguing for a change in the polity - a formal change in polity, structure, etc., rather than a tinkering with the existing structure. Yes it would require remits. I also will say more about the new system in a few weeks. The system I'm arguing for is not in place. What we have is a hybrid system - either call or settlement depending on which you choose. I'll be attending a Settlement Committee meeting on Thursday. 

As to what Presbyteries are doing in Toronto Conference, I can only reflect on what I'm told by those in Toronto Presbyteries. You're one of those voices. You're not the only voice. I don't necessarily hear the same message from all the voices.

I'm willing to go very radical. Either every minister seeks calls or every minister is subject to Settlement. In other words, I'd be willing to go back to the Methodist system where all pastoral relationships are appointments and are annual appointments. No calls at all. No hybrid system of any kind.

Totally agreed, James! The failure of that remit was a real missed opportunity to change radically the way we do things. It failed in Manitou (where I was serving at the time) because of the lack of clear picture of what the proposed "regional councils" would look like - what would the geography be, etc. There was also a clear feeling in the discussions we engaged in that people simply weren't willing to trust what would come out of the process if the remit passed. They wanted the specifics; they didn't want to leave the specifics to others. That lack of trust in the leadership of the church to be responsive to the needs "on the ground" came through loud and clear and is one of our great challenges and problems, imo.

Steven I understand the idea of a total redoing of poity but and this is a real but the work needed to be done would hold us up for years. Our problem is we do not set up small tasks forces to come back with a plan we conslute beyond the need. 

There are two ways of looking at a organization - the first is what is our business.  When that is clear, and it may change over time, the next is form follows function.

I too what to do away with conference.  And there are roles that are important that could be taken over by Presbytery.  One important function which is not meet today is conference was to regenerate the church - not through business but spiritual/theological time.  There is a need for face to face encounters for those of us who are in accountable paid ministry.  Notice I am suggesting no need for lay people at such events.

The other function is best practices model for laypeople and that too needs to be face to face.

One way conference could be done is open space where interests determines form. 

Now this issue of settlement and ordination - I like the presbyterian system of Presbytery ordination and I do like the new mix system where those who want will use the brokerage of the church to find a place.

Presbytery needs to be a place of spiritual renewal - again it suggests a sense of we are in a relationship that is beyond, me, my congregation - a sense of we are part of an organism.  Thus presbytery would cut back on 'business' - only doing what is needed - like approve calls and joint needs and discernment-   Not every meeting would be taken up with this and it would take little time.  The meeting could be open space where we are engaged in matters that speak to us and improve our sense of wellbeing.  Laity would be part of this process.

What this means is more staff in Presbytery and fewer in conference.

As far as the national body is I do not see it as top heavy - it is the nature of the organism, and it seems to be moving into form follows function.  There are some things that are just given to a national body and that only a national body can do.

Where we might be over burdened is the size of the exective - again that is a polity question, maybe enlarging the area of conferences could cut that number,  But in an age where we don't trust leadership a smaller exective might be resisted.

You're right, of course. It will take years. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Nor does it have to "hold us up." Where it matters - at the congregational level largely - the church will continue to function as it does now (and maybe increasingly more successfully as congregations start actually defining their own missions in their own contexts) because - let's be honest - increasing numbers of congregants couldn't care less about how the denomination is structured, and they do their own thing anyway.

I agree with pretty much everything else you say.

Steven yes your point is well taken in that it might force us to do our own mission thinking. But I am enough of a pragmatist to  reject all idealism - and there is a hint of idealism in redoing and thus freeing.  Of course I am not saying we should not rethink but more our human intentions tend to be a move to isolation - so i quess I don't trust if we build they will come idealism.  But that should not stop us from reimagining.

I would suggest that those in South west and Toronto Southeast are having more challenges in breaking from the previous model compared to those in Northern Waters and Living Waters. The first two found themselves being forced to work in a different manner and feel they lost much. Those of us in the northern presbyteries gained much and are working well. But as the presbyteries are now balanced and equal, it becomes a saw-off.

I doubt anyone will agree to structural change until a proposed, alternative structure is fully mapped out on paper -- all parts at all levels visually represented, with all Manual sections and operations exhaustively assigned to a place (or a progression of places for processes) on the map. 

Anything short of a full, exhaustive, visually mapped proposal will amount to a request for stakeholders to "just trust us" based on an organizing ideology.  Otherwise, we end up debating the ideology and never get around to mapping. 

Once a concrete proposal is concretely mapped, then stakeholders can participate in debates about edits and builds.  This helps reduce the number of participants who confuse "lobbing handgrenades from the sidelines" with constructive contributions. Constructive contribution by this method requires one to propose solutions to identified gaps.

And given that the Manual is still full of contradictions (I found an interesting one around the work of the Settlement Committee this year), I predict that will happen about two days before the Second Coming.

DKS, actually, the most critical voice I've heard among my Toronto Conference friends and acquaintances has been from Northern Waters (is that the one that now goes from York Region to Huntsville and beyond?) Which means nothing, I agree. There are always dissenters. But not everyone's happy even in the northern Toronto Conference Presbyteries.

GUC and DKS - you're both right. It will have to be clearly spelled out to be successful and it will happen two days (or less) before the Second Coming. But one can still dream!

Brad you are correct and i bet if we did an open space event instead of general council - invite reps from every conference we could get it done in 4 days... of course this would cost - another way would have a small open space of those who have a passion and their work sent out - this would be about 100 people or more than 50 - to come up with a mapping - two days to come up with the plan.

It might be the sign of the second coming to change how we do things to change things.

Or an online open space that allows as much time necessary to build a proposal that gains momentum towards a movement.

http://prezi.com/presentation/bmorri49@uwo.ca/4z5tej8/

A great idea - by the way our conversation can also happen when we are at the Epperly event - only two spaces left for it.

Hi GUC,

I'm in!

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi GUC,

I'm in!

Grace and peace to you.

John

One thng missing from the discussion above is vision/mission/purpose.  If we had a clear vision for the UCC that nourished the passions and hopes of its members, it would be a lot easier to build trust in a process dedicated to serving that vision.  When we don't know where we want to go, it is harder to trust any change process.  It is important for function to follow mission, and then structure to follow function.

I like the idea of getting rid of the conference level, and reorganizing presbyteries so each presbytery has the internal resources it needs to fulfill its 'bishop' role.

The Anglican diocese around Edmonton has a process I admire.  The synod fulfills the Conference and Presbytery roles and includes lay and clergy.  As well, it has regional clusters for the people in paid ministry to periodically meet in retreats for mutual support and spiritual development.

When considering function and form, maybe we can split the function into governance and support with different structures for each cluster of functions.

It would appear that the oversight report names outstanding issues but does support the conclusion that things are working well. I'm also in NW presbytery.

http://www.torontoconference.ca/downloads/exec-meeting-2011-02-09-appendix-c2-oversight-nw.pdf

[/quote]

Don't forget your prairie provinces and the west.  Sometimes we feel forgotten out here. I understand the UCC has less and less people going into the ministry and we sometimes have very little choice in who we are able to call, if we are able to call, and who wants to come to a small town?  Our choices are few.

I here many of you talking about turning more power or duties over to presbytery.  Is there any kind of training for presbytery members?  I don't believe there is where I come from.  I understand they are just handed the "rule book".