Comments on: “Terminating ministers”

By: Philocrites

Philocrites — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 21:04:01 +0000

@Joseph: The bylaw change regarding the MFC won’t come back for a second vote next year. The two-year requirement only applies to certain sections of the UUA bylaws (the so-called “C-bylaws”).

By: Jaume

Jaume — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 15:06:00 +0000

I agree, Scott. I am just asking the questions that logically follow an extreme congregationalist polity. I personally do not agree with that kind of polity, and I just wonder about its consequences.

By: Scott Wells

Scott Wells — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 12:25:53 +0000

@Jaume. They needn’t care, but the minister who wants to move would care. Which is the dangerous shift from congregations being self-governing to sovereign: the church holds all the cards.

By: Jaume

Jaume — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:18:29 +0000

If congregations are sovereign, why should they care if a minister is (still) fellowshipped or not?

By: Joseph Santos-Lyons

Joseph Santos-Lyons — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:21:08 +0000

hey scott
i was at the uuma business meeting when this issue came up. there was little opposition, i don’t think i heard any con speakers. i wasn’t at GA for the debate, looks like several folks got up there.

i think it is a good, and for the current climate, novel idea to talk about congregational discipline.

my understanding is that this issue is coming back to us next year?

By: Patrick McLaughlin

Patrick McLaughlin — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:11:23 +0000

Nah.

No authority over congregations was suggested or asserted.

I don’t see how this makes ministers more like at will employees. The MFC can’t terminate a minister’s call to a congregation.

All this did was to permit the MFC to tackle cases where a minister’s displayed incompetence, in the same way that they can take on displayed misconduct. (Both require discernment on the part of the MFC.) One is willful, and the other not… but both can be just as damaging to a congregation (and future ministries).