tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7587459.post95444722942112054..comments2023-12-05T04:20:37.460-06:00Comments on The Journey: Extension Ministry That Might WorkLizard Eaterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04506056116023122414noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7587459.post-54306501870887642242007-06-25T09:36:00.000-05:002007-06-25T09:36:00.000-05:00Sounds good to me. But.This is based on a particu...Sounds good to me. But.<BR/><BR/>This is based on a particular model of new churches. A band of a few UUs start meeting in an area that has no UU church. They meet as a fellowship. After a while (usually a decade or two), they've grown enough to ask Boston (or the district) for some help. But by that time they are set in their ways.<BR/><BR/>My impression is that Boston is, or was, moving away from that model towards new UU churches that are planned and ministerially-led from the get-go. I haven't heard where that stands now, after the Pathways disappointment.<BR/><BR/>Any chance we're ever going to plant a church up in Humble / Kingwood?<BR/><BR/>David ThroopAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7587459.post-13124492597498486792007-06-25T09:26:00.000-05:002007-06-25T09:26:00.000-05:00Well, this string is something that I have been th...Well, this string is something that I have been thinking about for a while as well. I also believe that the UUA needs extension ministers for the start-up transition from fellowship to church but I think it needs to be done differently. <BR/><BR/>Instead of the “great minister” (however that is defined, sounds like the “great man” theory of history), why not employ interim ministers in this position? They are accustomed to being uprooted for a year or two, most have twenty years or more experience, they are change agents as well as trained in explaining to congregations the norms of ministry and the Unitarian Universalist way. It seems reasonable that anyone interested in doing this would receive extra training from the Extension Department (or whatever it is being called these days.) Most of the “great ministers” in our movement, (if that is meant to mean ministers of large churches) know very little about small congregations and have very little experience as change agents. Several times I have seen a minister who served a big church move to a small church and hit the wall. Their skills were not transferable. <BR/><BR/>Several congregations in our movement are trying to make the transition from fellowship to church. Some of them have tried to make this transition before without success. It is hoped that by hiring interim ministers that they will make the transition rather than taking a minister right out of seminary and assuming that he or she can do this task (when he or she is also just learning how to be a minister.) We need to be more intentional about this process.<BR/><BR/>Just my two cents. . .Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02055943152137667405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7587459.post-27677833560493663932007-06-25T08:45:00.000-05:002007-06-25T08:45:00.000-05:00I chair the Extension Committee in my UUA District...I chair the Extension Committee in my UUA District, and we have been having very similar conversations about growth and a new form of extension/reach out ministry to help churches without ministers learn how they might benefit from one.<BR/><BR/>Can you elucidate on why the church with the bad extension ministry experience had such a bad time? Was the congregation not open to change? Was the minister a poor match? What elements differentiated the two? Our church benefited from Extension ministry in the 80's- and the church is much more healthy as a result. We did call that Extension minister. He moved on to a larger church after a few years. It did teach us the advantages of ministry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7587459.post-15152279265684712902007-06-25T08:09:00.000-05:002007-06-25T08:09:00.000-05:00Hmmm,sounds good in theory, but people tend to com...Hmmm,sounds good in theory, but people tend to complicate the simplest of things, don't we?!?! LOL.<BR/><BR/>But going along with your theory...<BR/>There should be some kind of ground rule that the two work together. If the two cannot work together than the minister makes the rules for an alotted time period without any hassle. If things still aren't running smoothly after the alotted time period, than the minister abides by the church(s) way of doing things for an alotted period of time...then maybe the two can find a compromise that 'works' or go their seperate ways.<BR/><BR/>Reason being...most people HATE change, especially closed minded people...but if they are forced to change, they do so a little more willingly if they know it's only for a set amount of time...which might just give them time to realize that change can be a good thing...and that road goes both ways if you get what I'm saying.<BR/>Not to mention...people have a tendency to take the easy way out and if rejection is an available option from the get-go, it will be utilized more than it's not.<BR/>Just my two cents;)Boobless Brigade Masterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03392600330618048541noreply@blogger.com