OF CONGREGATIONAL CONVERSATIONS FALL 2006
A downloadable copy of this information (Word format) is available for download via this link.
Progressive Summary V.3
Includes themes from conversations that occurred on :
October 5: 7:30 pm / UBC
October 8: 9:00 am / UBC
October 26: 10:00 am / UBC
November 12: 12:00 pm / UBC
The motion will be voted on at the Quarterly Business meeting on November 19.
ABOUT THIS SUMMARY
An Abbreviated Recent History. Through the fall of 2006, University Baptist Church (UBC) is holding several congregational conversations on the topic of ‘This Old House’. The purpose of these conversations is to explore and discuss the implications of a two-part motion to be presented to the Congregation at our Quarterly Business Meeting on November 19th:
1. That the University Baptist Church congregation actively seek housing alternatives to its current facility, and
2. That the Stewardship Council establish a time line and any needed working committees for the successful completion of this search.
The motions was developed by the Strategic Planning Team, accepted by the Stewardship Council, and presented for discussion at the Quarterly Business Meeting on September 17. On September 21, the motion was further clarified, responding to ideas and requests from our Congregation. All of these documents are available for your review at the UBC office. Our Congregation decided on September 17 to begin a series of Congregational Conversations; these became appreciatively known as ‘This Old House’ conversations. Three questions are asked at these conversations: What do we know? What don’t we know? How do we feel? In addition, questions, answers and discussion about the relevant facts and studies are discussed. The dates, times and locations are listed above.
This Summary as a Tool for All of Us. The purpose of this summary is to provide all of us with an additional tool for learning the thoughts, ideas and concerns of others on this important topic. Our hope is that this summary of themes can help us individually as we discern our own positions, and help us collectively as we strive to be generous, thoughtful and open with one another. This summary has been structured around five themes evident to date in our ‘This Old House’ conversations. Themes are listed below; most include several sub-themes. Those following each version will see two new themes since ‘V.1’:
1. A Tipping Point: Are We There?
2. A Challenging Decision
3. Our Missions, Programs and Tenants
4. Understanding All Our Options
5. A Time of Transformation
6. Our Welcoming and Wonderful Congregation
This summary will change with each additional conversation, up until the time the motion is offered for a vote on November 19th. Ideas and concepts expressed at the gatherings are included in italics. These are not quotes per se, they are included to illustrate the depth and breadth of the congregational conversations, and to add content to this summary. The purpose of this summary is to provide all of us with an additional tool for learning the thoughts, ideas and concerns of others on this important topic. Our hope is that this summary of themes can help us individually as we discern our own positions, and help us collectively as we strive to be generous, thoughtful and open with one another.
THEMES THUS FAR
1. A Tipping Point: Are We There?
Many participants talked about why this discussion, and why now. Some people are convinced it is time to explore (and even act upon) alternatives to our church building in its current form. Others are not sure that this is the time. No-one was recorded as expressing an overt opinion that this is not the time for discussion at the first two meetings (October 5 and 8). In fact, all participants appear to understand that a decision whether or not to move ahead will come on November 19th, and are happy to take a vote at that time.
Maintenance / Deferred Maintenance: Thus far in the conversations, there appears to be consensus that routine maintenance and significant deferred maintenance have become an untenable (or nearly so) problem.
• Plumbing, heating and electricity have been issues for the last 15 years. We have just been band-aiding. And it’s below code, below standard.
• It’s incredibly expensive to keep up this building in a safe manner. The building is getting beyond our ability to properly maintain it.
• We have delayed maintenance, and we need to know if we are capable of paying for what the building needs. Even so, it is good to be reminded of the resiliency of the building thus far.
• We are lucky to have a wonderful, flexible pastor. But he is called upon all the time to deal with building problems. This is not his job.
There are many stories to go along with the history of this struggle with the ‘physical plant’ of our building. There is pride that for many decades the majority of the work could be accomplished by members – and some wistfulness for these days as well.
• I remember when… many of us were carpenters and craftsmen. Yet one could work fulltime trying to keep up the building. I can look anywhere and see where work needs to be done. We aren’t maintaining the building properly.
• Much of the work around this building has been done by the congregation, and has been done with pride.
Although most agree that maintaining the church building has become a colossal task, some question whether or not a change is really necessary.
• I don’t know whether the repairs we are talking about are necessary because of the church members or because of the tenants.
Some are disappointed that more people have not ‘stepped up to the plate’ to do the maintenance.
• Where is the commitment of people? Do we really think a change in our building will change people’s involvement?
• I remember when we’d have no problem getting work parties together.
Seismic Issues: The issue of maintenance and deferred maintenance has been with the congregation for – some say – the entire history of the building. However a seismic safety analysis commissioned last year brought us face to face with the fact that our building is not up to code, and may not survive ‘the big one’. Some are convinced that seismic safety issues alone are enough to warrant serious discussions about ‘This Old House’; a handful of others want more surety that there really is a problem and that the costs to retrofit the church building are supportable.
• Our building has held up fine during the last several earthquakes.
• The parapet and the cross are the two most immediate hazards.
• If we were to retrofit our building for seismic safety, the City has said they might be ‘flexible’ regarding code. This actually concerns me – ‘flexible’ can mean ‘uncertain and changing’; and wouldn’t we want to be held accountable to the standards others must meet.
• How much risk can we tolerate? We are more concerned than reality suggests we ought to be.
• I’d like to understand more about what is required under what circumstances for seismic upgrades. I’d also like to understand what are our ‘moral’ obligations regarding seismic upgrades.
• I want the opportunity to have a say in the future of the building – not let an earthquake or fire decide for us.
Energy and Hope: Although any conversation about our literal and physical church ‘home’ is challenging, a clear theme in the conversations thus far has been the ability of the congregation to engage one another respectfully and energetically on the topic.
• This is a remarkable congregation and community filled with skilled, thoughtful and caring people. I feel a lot of confidence in our ability to address this issue, especially based on what we know about the past.
• We’ll need effort from many people if we decide to go ahead and explore other options.
• I am not afraid. Even more wonderful things may evolve from this journey.
One person offered this ‘nugget’:
• Jesus would not want us to focus on the building (!).
Overall Finances: Information from the Finance Team was brought to each meeting. Many people found this information compelling. People noted that it has difficult to meet expenses each year, that we do not pay Tim what we had hoped and promised and that problems with heating and plumbing systems create large and variable expenses.
• I know we are not meeting our expenses; this for the last three years.
• The building is a dreadful drain on our resources; financial and otherwise.
• What is the cost-benefit? Are the necessary upgrades and repairs more or less than the overall value of the building?
• We are not paying Tim what we have promised – the building is a big part of why this is so.
More than one person questioned if the financial information could cause us to ask the wrong questions, perhaps seeking answers prematurely or out of sequence.
• If I were a business person and my business was not generating enough income, I would ask first what I could do to improve my income – not ‘am I in the right location’.
• Is it possible the estimates for repairs and the ballpark estimates for seismic retrofitting are exaggerated?
• Even if we were able to fix the building, would we be able to continue to afford upkeep and maintenance?
2. A Challenging Decision
It can be assumed that all recognize that the motion before us on November 19th represents a challenging decision. And if the motion, or some similar variant of the motion passes, there will be even more challenging decisions ahead.
Oh so Challenging! Several people have expressed how very hard it is to make this decision. Many people are sad a change is even being discussed – although it appears no one is surprised. Ambivalence about the decision is present; even prevalent. But this ambivalence is not born of disinterest – on the contrary, most congregants feel acutely the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of the decision even in their own hearts.
• We have a dilemma: hang on the old and try to make do, or attempt the new which we know so little about.
• Change can be so hard – and it can be good, eventually as well.
• I’d like to: win the lottery; crawl in a hole; pretend we don’t have to make a decision. I am: ambivalent; torn two directions; sad.
• For me, this decision is almost easy from a practical standpoint – but very difficult from an emotional standpoint.
How this Decision is Made The fairness and transparency of the process leading up to a decision is extremely important. This is especially true for this congregation, where in past decades processes have not been fair or easy to discern. Thus far, there appears to be support for the process.
• I am glad the vote is simply about whether or not we continue as we are, for we have much more to discuss. I am heartened by the fact that we can explore and discuss these things.
• It is empowering that we will be able to vote and have a say. Seems fair so far.
• I appreciate the ‘R-E-S-P-E-C-T’ reminder we received when we started.
Some began thinking about how decision making might work after November 19th:
• If, on November 19th, we decide to explore other options, will we make the decision by consensus? What if we don’t have consensus?
Predicting the Future Should the motion pass on November 19th, there will be many more decisions and much more discernment ahead of us. How we wish we could have certainty on a number of critical factors in our future!
• I would like to know what the real estate market will be like in the future – even though I know I can’t know this!
• Yes, we have been either lucky or blessed that a major earthquake hasn’t occurred. Even so, we don’t have enough record in this area to make predictions.
• The building has lasted so far – perhaps it has several more decades in it.
• We’ll need to know if what we propose is going to be more difficult in blood, sweat and years than what we have now.
Loving our Church Building The church building itself – especially the sanctuary – is a sacred place for many in the congregation. The memories associated with the sanctuary, the sheer beauty of the interior, the quality of the sound of the organ in that particular space are all important. People would grieve for these things if we were to leave or lose them. Some are less attached to the building, but respect and sympathize with those who are. Others find the people more important than the building – even as they also love the building. During the last conversation, there was a recurrent and very strong theme that the sanctuary – especially the windows, the rose window and the organ – are exceptionally important. Some even said ‘we should save the sanctuary’.
• The strength and beauty of the sanctuary....
• Loosing a place for our organ would make me sad.
• Ours is a sacred space, with beautiful stained glass windows.
• I love the beauty of the building, but we have to be practical.
• As a relative new-comer, I have less attachment to the building. But I am attached to people who do have an attachment to this building, and therefore I feel a sense of loss for them; I know even discussions about this are hard for them.
• The windows and the rose window and the organ are so important. We should, even must, have a plan that saves these; keeps these for us.
• …I hope this historic building is not replaced by another boring high-rise.
• I grew up in this building, still it seems the building is unwieldy for us…
More than a Building: Several people noted that the building is more than a building – it is a place of memory; even a symbol. For many, it is a place of comfort.
• We must acknowledge the spirit of the building; objects of importance can take on a life of their own.
• The building holds memories, emotions and a rich history; it is a reminder of those who are here now and those who were here in the past.
• We should allow ourselves to feel the emotions we are experiencing: fear, hope, sadness, excitement, grief.
3. Our Missions; Programs and Tenants
Several people had much to say about the importance of being proactive regarding what we actually want in a building to house us, our missions and programs. Others voice a strong desire to engage and be clear with our tenants, in particular University Baptist Childcare Center (UBCC).
Matching our Building to our Missions and Programs – Or Vice Versa! Some remind us that we can look again at our missions and programs, and perhaps find other ways (beyond a building or space) to support things we care about.
• What we do structurally and programmatically is tied together.
• If we were going to dream, would we dream up this building? I don’t think so.
• What are goals and priorities?
• What do we want our space to do? Certainly we want a sacred space; but what else? And why?
• Our vision and mission statement should serve as our guides.
• We may need to re-imagine our current ministries. This could be an opportunity to find a new way to engage in our missions.
• We should keep the ministries we have.
• This particular building is not great for a childcare center.
• Our tenants are here because we believe they have a positive impact. Our decision will, then, impact the larger community.
• Some of our missions and programs are more dependent upon our location than others – for instance, the Saturday Kitchen works best precisely because it is in the U District where buses are close, etc.
Communicating with our Tenants Many in these conversations think it essential to keep our tenants in mind -- and consulting them along the way – is essential.
• It would be helpful to hear from our major users.
• It is important to be in communication with UBCC. Remember, they don’t have a vote.
Growing our Church Family Conversations included much support, praise and appreciation for the people of this church. This enthusiasm for our congregation was tempered with a sense that we are not growing as we should and/or that there are not enough young adults, youth and children. Many wonder why this is the case when the welcome here is so true, the people so vibrant. Others say that mainstream protestant denominations are simply not growing – we’re part of that trend.
• We have a small number of kids despite our efforts. Where are the kids?
• New people, younger people could just get beaten down by one broken toilet after another.
• When I imagine inviting new folks into the bright fellowship of our church, it is not to invite them into the task of attempting to keep an edifice afloat.
• We are not grooming a new set of people to steward the building – and they are not here to groom!
• The only churches growing are mega-churches, and I don’t want to be associated with one of those. Let’s accept this and move on.
• We do have a committed core of people.
• How do we keep our new people engaged – and even attract new people – during this decision making time? This may actually be a time when new people at UBC can feel they have a substantive voice in the direction we take.
4. Understanding All Our Options
This fall, our ‘This Old House’ conversations are focused on the motion that will be before us on November 19th. Even so, many people wish to talk about their creative ideas and new thoughts about specific options our congregation might explore, if the motion passes on November 19th. Others don’t want to vote ‘yes’ on November 19th until they have a sense there really is a set of viable options we can pursue. At the October 26th meeting, more of the discussion focused on ‘understanding all our options’ than at the first two meetings. People had and wanted to talk about a variety of ideas.
A Variety of Ideas: Ideas include: using the building as an income-generating site for cell phone equipment; looking closely at the ‘Ecumenical Parish’ concept being explored by other churches; selling the building and using the funds to help finance a new church; selling private home in proximity to one another and using this land for a new church building; joining with another congregation, either to share space or to merge; sell the church and use the money to support / start a mission that is important to us; co-develop the site we have now with a developer who shares our sense of mission. It is important to note that these kinds of questions, and those noted below, are exactly the kinds of questions we would seek answers for if the vote on November 19 is ‘yes’. If the congregation chooses specifically not to explore options, there is no need to seek answers to these questions.
• Does any one know how the internal design of the proposed Ecumenical Parish is envisioned? How they would accommodate several churches?
• Where does it make sense for us to locate given where our people live?
• Who would be the right co-developer or new owner, given our missions and values?
• What are the restrictions on building on our site?
• I kind of like the idea of joining with another congregation.
• I know a church that meets in a community center; this gives them a whole new set of ways to interact with the community.
• If we decide to move ahead on November 19th, let’s plan how we will move ahead as well. For instance, how staff should prepare.
• The University District may not be as good a place for a church any more – the residential nature of the District has changed.
What other Churches are Doing: Some have an interest in learning more about what others churches are doing, and have done, when faced with similar decisions. Recent news articles suggest we are not alone.
• Let’s learn from what other congregations are doing in this same situation.
• Other congregations have stayed whole and even thrived after this kind of choice. We may not come up with the same solutions, but it would be good to hear how they achieved satisfaction; even happiness.
A new question for other churches was brought up in the last conversation:
• How do we keep new people interested, engaged, hopeful as we think through what – if anything – to do next with our building?
5. A Time of Transformation
During the last Congregational Conversation, on November 11, a new theme emerged. This them recognizes explicitly that this is a time of transformation, regardless of what our decision is on November 19th. While this theme was offered in other previous conversations (see, especially, ‘Oh, so Challenging!’ on page 4, and ‘Matching our Building to our Missions and Programs – Or Vice Versa!’ on page 5), it had the vigor of it’s own ‘theme’ on November 11th.
Who are We Now? Who Will We Be? Many people appreciate – even love – what we are and who we are now. Will this change if we make a change? Will it change for the better?
• I’m a little bit afraid of the unknowns – what will a ‘new’ UBC be like?
• Will this decision make us different? Probably. I am both excited and frightened by this.
• I am apprehensive – and excited – about the possibility we could ‘break out of the box’.
• We may find we come to perceive ourselves quite differently than we do now – let’s be ready for this possibility.
6. Our Welcoming and Wonderful Congregation
Conversations about the future of ‘This Old House’ inevitably led to conversations about our people, our congregation. Many participants said the people of the church are the essential component for them. For some, the congregation itself is the ‘sanctuary’. The people of University Baptist Church are welcoming and wonderful. And not afraid of a challenge.
Whenever Two are Gathered…. There is a strong and abiding sense that the people are what makes us UBC. And while a sacred space of some sort is extremely important to most who have spoken thus far, most say faith and fellowship is not contained in a building. Even our building: so lovely, so full of memories and grace.
• I don’t want to see people going off in different directions because of this.
• A sacred space is energized by people.
• The life of a congregation is the people; it’s beyond the building.
Inquiry, Dialog and Change do not Daunt Us: The church has a long history of thoughtfully considering, and then making difficult decisions. There is a sense that ‘we know how to do this’ and ‘we can stay whole’ through this decision.
• Change is difficult. But it appears we must change in some way. For me it is invigorating and exciting – though it is uncomfortable, too.
• Past changes have always evolved to make things better. I don’t have any big ideas, but I have great faith that it’s going to be wonderful despite what is likely to be a difficult process.
• We know how to make tough decisions here. We’ve done it many times before.
• Our greatest assist is what we are as a community. Here I feel a sense of belonging, of being valued. I hope – I expect – we can keep this kind of connection present always.
• Whatever we do, we must – will – can hang together.
This summary is offered to you with humble hope and with profound gratitude. Many thanks to those who came to the conversations, and to those took notes and facilitated the meetings: Brooke Rolston, Margie Payton, Eric Brown, Tom Nielsen, Bev Spears and Lynn Gaertner-Johnston.
Yours,
moderator-elect