Directions outlined

should look like, and creating a better and more beautiful Uniting Church has absolutely been at the front of my mind as a steering committee member.

“It’s not about change for change’s sake, or for financial reasons, although, of course, financial aspects do come into it.

“This is about change because we want to be a better and more beautiful Uniting Church when we are participating in God's kingdom, responding to God's love, and unless we are doing that, and unless that is the ultimate outcome, the project won’t have achieved what we hoped for.”

While honesty has been at the centre of the consultation process, Andrew says that with that level of openness comes an opportunity to reimagine a better Uniting Church.

“One of the hopeful things I would say is that everywhere you go, someone's trying to do something new and someone's trying to do something differently,” he says.

“It's very under the radar and very small in most cases, so part of this is about asking, ‘well, how do we encourage and foster and recognise all that’ while also saying, ‘oh, there are some great things going on’, so the institutional life of our Church isn’t simply monopolised by the challenges that we are facing.”

As the 17th Assembly gathering looms large on the horizon, Jessica can see a process unfolding which sets up a future Uniting Church which benefits from, and has been blessed by, the wisdom and insight of its many and diverse members.

That’s why, she says, it has been an honour to be part of the Act2 Project’s Steering Committee.

“I would hope that the outcome from the creativity, courage and commitment that have all gone into this process is a more vibrant Uniting Church that is growing, is life-giving for those involved in it, and brings restoration and reconciliation to the world,” she says.

“What I hope for is a healthy and sustainable Church.”

Go to www.act2uca.com/act2report to read the ‘Act2: In response to God’s call’ report in full.

Following the first phase of the Act2 Project, four directions and four options have been put forward in the ‘Act2: In response to God’s call’ report for Uniting Church members to consider.

The four directions relate to workstream 1 on local communities of faith, and the four options relate to workstream 3 on governance and resourcing, and have been outlined below by the Act2 Project Steering Committee.

The idea of the directions is that they are a diverse ‘toolbox’ of things that could be drawn on, depending on local community needs, so not all of them may apply everywhere.

Direction 1

Encourage local communities of discipleship and mission

 Seeks to encourage a focus on discipleship across the Uniting Church

 We have heard that encouraging a focus discipleship needs to be a higher priority

 Where we’re seeing life and health in our church, we’re seeing a consistent and structured approach to discipleship

 Also encourages more shared mission – in some communities there are lots of different expressions in a shared space, for example congregations that are close together, schools, agencies, community partners – are there ways we can work together

Direction 2

Align with the vision of congregations in the Basis of Union

 In the Basis of Union there is a clear and compelling vision of the life of congregations, which names five core things – word, sacrament, service, building each other up in love, sharing in the work of the wider church

 In the regulations we have piled a whole lot of things on top of that vision, meaning that we have started recognising congregations according to their capacity to meet the regulations, not these five core things

 This direction just says let’s get back to the heart of the vision (which will definitely entail some regulation change)

Direction

3

Support fit for purpose governance arrangements

 Local congregations are telling us they need more flexibility in how they govern their own life

 The Regulations create the impression that the normative structure of a congregation is one Congregation with one Church Council, one minister, funded off the giving of members. Almost none of our congregations now fit that model

 The capacity of congregations can vary drastically, some have a lot of energy and some have none, we need more flexibility and what we ask these communities to do needs to fit the local context

 Presbyteries also need to be empowered and resourced to respond to the needs of local communities in a more flexible way

Direction

4

Recognise there is a time for everything  this one is almost about the life cycle of our communities but particularly around endings and beginnings

 we need simpler pathways for new communities to be birthed in the UCA, and we need to be better at helping congregations explore their future, including when they might close

These four directions will not alone renew our Church, rather they offer some ways of addressing the structural and systemic issues we have heard to try and provide space for communities to recentre their life on discipleship and mission.

Options These are four options for structural models we might adopt for the future

Option 1

Proposes a three council model – local, national, and a third hybrid council which integrates the councils we currently know as the Presbytery and Synod

Option 2

In this model the regional council (currently known as the Synod) is the strongest and takes on some of the other responsibilities that were performed by the Assembly. You have a very small national council, and area councils (currently known as Presbyteries) perform just two roles – oversight of people and communities

Option 3

In this model the area councils (currently known as Presbyteries) are the strongest, focusing on oversight of people, communities and the administration directly relating to local communities but not property. Property is managed by the regional council (Synod). In this model we imagine having only two very small regional councils, which have just one role, which is to manage property trusts

Option 4

Is the closest with the status quo but with the addition of a mechanism to intentionally distribute a joint pool of funds (administered by Synod and Assembly) to ensure equitable resourcing of ministry and mission across the UCA

You can find our summary of strengths and weaknesses in each of the four models in section 6 of the report: www.act2uca.com/act2report