2. 1st Congregational Forum November 2012
Board to explore two things:
- start conversations with URC
- prepare disaffiliation from MCC
3. Discussions with URC
- Warm reception from Area Pastoral
Committee
- Positive response from NW Synod
Moderator
- Informal discussions underway
4. Disaffiliation from MCC
- UFMCC Bylaws
- UK legal status - Charity
- Name change for our charity
- Changes to our constitution
- General meeting of members
- Andy’s clergy status
5. Update to AGM - April 2013
- on progress with URC
- Andy’s pathway towards URC
Minister status
6. 2nd Congregational Forum
- 30th June 2013 (1)
- Possibility of “Mission Project” (2 3 years duration)
- Become independent
- Eventual admission as a URC
congregation subject to mutual
agreement
7. 2nd Congregational Forum
- 30th June 2013 (2)
- Feedback exercise
- If positive, further discussions
around Mission Project
- Andy continues discussions around
clergy status
8. Feedback exercise
- 29 of 30 respondents wanted to
continue discussions around Mission
Project scheme
9. Timeline constraints
- Planned admission as Mission
Project at NW Synod in March 2014
- Synod proposals need to be tied up
by December 2013
- Need to disaffiliate from UFMCC
prior to December to be eligible
10. An Independent Church
- New name - consultation
- New logo - consultation
- Personal reflections
- Tonight’s agenda
Editor's Notes
The Board believes that our continued membership of UFMCC is a drain on our resources (we have to give 12.5% of our income to them as well as pay for our pastor and mission here) whilst offering us very little in return.
UFMCC makes no provision to pay pastors or provide for their retirement.
Monies given to UFMCC pay for expensive salaries for elders (c$65,000/£40,600) and our Moderator (c$100,000/£62,500) and the denominational staff who are on very modest salaries indeed.
We have very little influence on the direction of UFMCC given the fact that governing conferences meet infrequently, in the Americas, and have less and less authority.
The evolution of elders, who were elected to serve churches in particular areas, into appointed bishops with more and more authority is disturbing.
The cultural norms of UFMCC are American and it struggles to comprehend other cultures.
Our membership of UFMCC precludes us from being part of the national Churches Together organisation so we are seen as rather outside the norm and sometimes treated with suspicion. The fact we are not part of a recognised UK denomination makes us appear like an American cult and puts some people off from getting involved with us.
The Board is concerned that the number of UFMCC congregations has declined from 300 in 1988 to around 176 now and is aware that many of American MCCs that remain have quietly dually affiliated with the United Church of Christ (the American sister church of the URC).
As MCC has got smaller more and more power is vested in fewer people and UFMCC is less democratic than ever before.
We have always struggled with the fact that financial resources given to UFMCC by local congregations don’t strengthen the ministry of local churches and that UFMCC doesn't centrally pay for stipends or pensions of clergy.
Two years ago, moves to make a more democratic structure in Europe, supported by over two thirds of our churches and clergy, were squashed and the Board believes that the direction in which the UFMCC is being steered means that its current decline will continue.
The conversations we have had with the URC have led to their invitation to us to consider a particular course which they believe is a good fit for what we are seeking to achieve. This means that we do have options, but realistically some are more viable than others:
a. Remain with MCC,
b. Become an independent church,
c. Seek a relationship with the Congregational Federation,
d. Seek to become a distinct URC congregation,
e. Cease to exist as a separate congregation and join Wilbraham St Ninian’s en masse.
The URC recognises that new initiatives in mission are taking place in many areas. Some of the these are direct initiatives from within the URC, others begin in a variety
of ways and then seek to be associated with the URC. So, the URC General Assembly has made provision for such initiatives to seek to become Mission Projects of whichever URC Synod covers their area, and under this scheme we could apply to become a Mission Project of the NW Synod of the URC. This would require disaffiliation from MCC before being adopted as a Mission Project.
During the Mission Project period, we would function under the broad oversight of the NW Synod with a view to becoming a URC congregation at some future
point, but would retain our own structure, internal governance, financial responsibilities, and Pastor, as an independent congregation under the URC’s Mission Project banner.
The Moderator has given a very clear undertaking that the focus of our LGBT ministry and charism should not change: indeed it is one of the characteristics which make us sufficiently distinctive to justify our adoption as a Mission Project. The General Assembly provisions for Mission Projects state that a newly recognised
Local Church would be encouraged to retain the forms of worship, life and witness already developed within the context of the Mission Project. This may be the means by which we continue to honour the best aspects of our MCC heritage.
