What I would have done!!

Some of my reader/s will know that over the last year plus, our state body in the Uniting Church has been working on the latest [most urgent] attempt to reshape in the face of increasing challenges and decreasing resources. There were 'special disbursements' due to previous share market dividends, courageous decisions to spend bequests and to recognise that if some resources were 'for a rainy day' then it's friggin' pouring... the particularly galling 3 years of budget cuts to create a circuit breaker pool of funds to reorder how they were spent... and now the merger of our Boards of Mission and Education... meaning more than a dozen jobs end in December 2011 and a handful will be reshaped and advertised [sometime].

Affirmations or Givens:
- All these things are honest attempts by committed people to meet the challenges of our current context as a church shrinking and stuttering at engaging in God's mission in the world in 21st C ways
- Both Boards leadership has been telling our decisionmaking bodies for at least three years that a solution was needed and none was forthcoming from those bodies
- A Board Merger was 'almost inevitable' in the circumstances
- What's been planned offers a chance to break the mould of our incrementally changed former roles, Units and groups who all laboured hard to stay relevant and to address the real issues in our regions, congregations and how we fund our mission and discipleship
- After 11 years in my own current role it was time to look elsewhere anyhow BUT some plans had been considered and the timing was set to best allow good decisions around a hosting of our national youth event NCYC [or not] and that's been compromised
- The full positive potential for the merger has been limited by the 'non negotiables' which came into the idea once talks began. Creative ideas to value add to some of those areas were heard as something other than ideas of focusing the work so jobs that have been lost might have maintained some edge but been added to those ongoing areas.
- Some resources which could be diverted have been seen as not part of the equation as they don't 'cost' but instead the question could be 'are they a priority' or is that the best way to reflect this missional priority and could the resources be used differently on what things are a priority
-2011 is the year of the ticking clock for myself and all my colleagues and some around us are clueless, incapable or not interested in the personal cost of these journeys. Others are endlessly supportive and we all know God is at work in all the mess, creativity and possibilities.

WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN BETTER
A proposal had developed alongside merger talks for a wider strategic review and I for one believe the 'wider' is important but that this review was not necessarily the right one. I said so to whoever asked, would listen or on bodies I participate in who asked these questions. I have also been active in the merger process when we've been asked for ideas and even see some of those concepts in the current plan... SO... I feel able to reflect and comment and mean no criticism to any group who've been trying to do what's been asked of them...

BUT,
We need a 'mission review' across the life of our mission field, the Synod of NSW/ACT. Not a structural review, but a discussion about who we are and why... to the point of practical resourcing...
A Steering Group could/should design consultation/s with local and regional stakeholders who come together for a facilitated discussion which doesn't ask 'what do you want to grab?' or what have you been unhappy about but draws us back to questions of 'who God is calling us to be in this place or places at this time?" OR 'where do we see God active in our communities that we are called to participate in and what wider resourcing would enhance that effort?'
Personally I would design a one day process for dealing with our annual Synod meeting business and devote the rest of the time to including that meeting as one consultation and then the following time it could work through some practical outcomes focused decision making. A Consultant and Team would drive the process towards a picture of our call, priorities, non priorities and then resourcing and institutional frameworks could be set up and reshaped accordingly...
Such a process would take seriously 'the five marks of mission,' the extent and need of our property resources and where we hold capital and property which could be sold and invested in missional activity.
This current context calls for changed institutional arrangements and we've been making small steps around funding focus, breaking open grants and special projects, regional generosity and use of the sales proceeds from property... are we up to the bigger stuff now. The one certainty is 'change' and the rest is about how we meet the adaptive challenges it presents. A 'ground up' consultation process is less about a large institution trying to reshape itself and more about individuals and groups envisaging what we need the monolith to do so what shape is needed becomes clearer. Previous Presbytery/Synod dialogues have by all reports been a blamefest and a standoff... we can no longer afford this...
The trouble is none of this is easy or orderly so people will be displaced either way. This idea is about asking who we are and whose we are, from big picture through to concerete arrangements. Others better at organisational structures than me could design central and regional resourcing to meet the plan. Maybe we could even include the voices from our 'growing edges' of: non anglo groups; young adults looking for new forms of church; and a few larger contemporary groups as we grapple with what that means across the theological spectrum.
To date the oft chanted criticism of our synod decisionmaking [that it's top heavy with employed leaders] could for this instance be true in some spheres where the problems have been examined... simply going ground up without a good process is no better.
Second lastly, we should adopt the Parramatta-Nepean approach of a fifty year plan... some find it amusing or befuddling... I think it's the only way to go.... we make the same kinds of cases for infrastructure and public transport in NSW and it doesn't have our contextual issues, mostly just funding pressures... that we have in common!!
Lastly for this post, these are the crazy thoughts that fill my sleepless and restless head... nothing more, nothing less... so perhaps more clarity will emerge in future posts... Anyhow, I'm just thinking out loud... a dangerous thing usually!!

Change

"God help us to change.

To change ourselves and to change our world.

To know the need of it. To deal with the pain of it.

To feel the joy of it. To undertake the journey without understanding the destination.

The art of gentle revolution. Amen"

At our staff meeting this week we spent a deal of time thinking and talking about CHANGE! It was masquerading as the reality of our financial future and the fact that events will overtake the status quo and mean consolidation, loss of roles, morphing into a new structure etc.

As I've thought about it since [my contribution is sadly always contradicted, made sensible or is actually on topic in my own head later on after time to think... I wish that clarity happened at the time].

In one way what we were really talking about was finding a way to help our whole institution deal with CHANGE.... vision, structures, missional congegations, wider resourcing, property rationalisation, learning, history and all our different perspectives!

One message which needs to get out is that not only has the world changed [the normal approach] but the church has also changed, it's already too late... people react:

1. As though we have a choice

2. Out of their own paradigm

3. As if any voice for change is heresy

4. Gravitating towards what power can be wielded

5. With Turf wars

6. Changing stuff that's irrelevant

etc etc

I started with the Michael Leunig prayer because coincidentally I had included it in a worship outline for an assignment just this week. Then I also read it in a post on a blog by Steve Taylor who will in fact be speaking at our UCA National Workers with Children, Youth & Families Inservice in South Australia this coming August.

I'm still pondering one key idea from our meeting about modelling the change. This will mean 'giving up' things ourselves. This could include:

1. Giving away some security

2. Pushing further with our staff and cross Board initiatives

3. Giving energy to our 1.5 and 2nd Gen young people

4. Being willing to engage in lateral and costly thinking

5. working across our interconciliar appraoch to broker new ways of working

For me I hope the work I'm doing and the things I'd like to see happen with Salt [Factory] might be a way to envision and be engaged in 'the new'. I think it's what the future development of 'congregations' could be like... I guess we'll see!!

Anyhow I'm babbling now with a big day on the schedule tomorrow so I will come back to this... how can we think missionally about the future structure of our institution and act for change within it... the cross we bear!!

Worship Unplugged # 46 Setting Up the Space

More an entire approach than a single aspect...
This post is inspired by an interesting interview on ABC radio yesterday!!
'The Conversation Hour' on 702 is frustrating and informative.
It breaks up the morning radio shifts at weird times to accomodate the 11-12 time slot, is run by Richard Fidler [former Doug Anthony All Star and race Around the Word host] in Sydney
and should be the standard practice for interesting interviews!!
Given all this it still manages to let interesting people shine through...

On Friday the Interview was with Greg Whitby the Head of Catholic Schools for the Parramatta region in Sydney who has brought some brilliant planning to new and refurbished schools in the area. He was named by the Bulletin magazine as Australia's smartest most creative person...
Check out the basics here:
http://www.abc.net.au/queensland/conversations/stories/s1965836.htm?sydney

Why it struck me is that Greg was talking about how and why traditional schools are built and shaped the way they are and how subject division and timetables and rooms etc all suit a particular model of 'School'

Oak Flat School might be worth a visit.

The kind of concepts they explore are whole of life and subject scenario based learning with teaching teams across flexible time periods and based around group work.

The philosophy has been to encourage teachers to contribute according to their gifts, to teach subjects in real life as part of broader questions and problem solving, to use day to day stuff and to do so without the period bell, 40 min lessons etc.

So the learner drives the process.

The buildings, technology [wireless network and laptops etc] and equipment are all tools for the learning. The way they do things has been developed collaboratively by the staff to meet the requirements of the curriculum through this basic method.

The only arguments against were based in 'this is how we've always taught and it was good enough for us' basket...

He talked about how when you enter the Smithsonians Space Museum in Washington you see shuttles and lunar craft... this is about space.... he wants people to walk into a school and know their serious about learning... libraries to be open spaces, learning environments to be hands on and comfortable etc etc...

YOU CAN SEE how straight away it resonated for me with fresh expressions of church and indeed the reinvention of church....

It's about what our ethos is, our hopes and goals and then structuring our spaces and experiences to match... not being restricted by decade and century old buildings from a different time, context and place!!

More specifics next post...

PART 2

Let me try and be a little clearer...
What struck me about the approach to Schools was that it began by asking...
what are we wanting to do here? whats the goal? what are we hoping for?

It relation to the School it was about learning,
We might talk about community, spirituality, worship experiences
and eventually get closer to talking about experiences and spaces that foster discipleship,
that encourage people to explore faith,
and invite them to do so individually and together!!

Symbols, windows, furniture, walls, temperature, technology and the way the space is used would all contribute.

How would church's be different... well, another thing they spoke about was a building designed for flexible use... e.g. 7 days a week

I picture an entry foyer with contemporary art about faith, hope and love...
Flat screen tv's with looped av's that kick in when you fire up the power, lights and air con...
Its comfortably warm, skylights provide heaps of natural light.
On one side you look through smoked glass into a commercially operated cafe that's accessed one night a week by a spirituality book club and one night a week by a social justice and action artspace.

There is stained glass but its in panels that jut out from the wall and make small group spaces out of the large foyer if you all huddle at the edges.

A kitchen has three sides as serveries to different other rooms.

The main worship space has three different focal aspects each with different kinds of seating.
The whole space can be transformed into any one of those three or the three maintained. e.g. giant bean bag lounges, seats in small group with some tables and theatrette styled seating.

Though I really shouldn't be focused on that its just that as my mind imagines the activity its easier to describe what the outcome is in terms of the space required!!

There are meeting rooms, an open plan ministry office and a leased shop space at the side of the building with three retail outlets.

The car park will cater for an uncomfortably full building.

The community who express belonging here are actively engaged in being a force for change in the community they are part of... globally, locally, individually...

Worship reflects the culture and context and there are different groupings encouraged to do what the students were encouraged to do in the schools i.e. be be co-developers of the learning.

Its not about one expert upfront but people with access to knowledge like never before... constructing responses, questions, liturgy and action out of their understanding of who God is calling them to be...