The Two Proposals for our Meeting on 11th July

Ahead of Monday’s meeting I’d like to set out the choice that is to be made. 

The Bible Discussion Group has been running for two years now without a break. That’s quite an achievement for an independent, ad hoc group. There has been an evolution of participants, from the first generation when the likes of Rory Castle Jones, Mark Hutchinson, Mike O’ Sullivan, Jim Corrigall, Bob Pounder, Stephanie Bisby and others did so much to help the group get established. (Apologies to anyone I've not mentioned). New participants and discussion leaders have come along, and we now have quite a large number of Unitarians who sometimes come to discussions, and an even larger number who have come ‘for a season’. 

It works because there is a genuine need for what we do - the Bible is an underused resource in many Unitarian churches and chapels, and we are doing something about that. 

It also works because from the very beginning we have been clear that it’s for Unitarians from all backgrounds - whatever your beliefs or level of expertise. 

So, we can all feel proud of the part we have played along the way in establishing something that Unitarianism needs. And we’ve done this as an independent group, ad hoc group: but now, I feel we have reached a point where we need to put the discussions on a firmer foundation. 

By doing this we would be addressing three problems. 

Firstly, Ruth recently mentioned a digital innovation award that the Unitarian & Free Christian Bible Discussion Group might qualify for. But we couldn’t receive the money. We have some rules for discussions and a Facebook group, but we don’t have any formal leadership structure, let alone a bank account. It’s not overly concerning that we can’t compete for this award, it’s just an illustration of the sort of limitations that come with not being formally constituted. Could we do more and better things? For example, would being constituted with an aim, such as ‘the promotion of the Bible as a resource within Unitarianism’, give us a greater sense of cohesion and purpose?

Secondly, and this is the main issue, the burden of running the group does not fall evenly. In the early days there were a lot of people stuck at home, due to the pandemic, including ministers and others with specialised skill. And when it came to advertising the group and making sure the rota was filled, I had time to do this. Things have changed now. Everyone’s got busy, and I’m no exception. There’s no one else who is responsible for making things happen and so it tends to be me. I haven’t minded doing this but it’s unsustainable going forward. We formed the BDG Leadership Facebook group, to try to get a more collaborative leadership structure, but this hasn’t really changed the situation re workload and responsibilities. I’m involved with ministry training placements, residential courses, home study and an increasing range of UCA projects. All of which means I feel that I can’t continue to be the mainstay of the group. 

Thirdly, the relationship with the UCA has evolved. To start with, the UCA let us use their zoom account. Then the UCA started to publicise events, such as the Bible Talks, as well as the regular discussion. People have come to the discussion group from the UCA, and vice versa. And now that the UCA has been holding weekly online worship, the relationship is becoming more complex. The difference between the discussion group and the UCA isn’t always clear to newcomers, and quite a few of us go to the worship on Sunday evening and the discussion on Monday evening.  Now, it sometimes happens that a topic or verse used in Sunday worship becomes the subject for discussion on Monday, or a discussion inspires a sermon in a subsequent Sunday. 

And so, if we’re going to put the discussion group on a more formal basis, and share the responsibilities and roles more equitably, there seem to be two options before us. 

1. The Bible Discussion Group becomes an official society, or other form of organisation, with properly constituted leadership and policies. This would retain the group’s independence, but it would mean that folk need to come forward to make it happen, and to take leadership positions, and to run the group, week by week, as well as setting direction for the future. This would include administering the Facebook group, the blog or whatever communications were felt to be needed. I’d be very happy for this to happen and would be an active participant, but would not want to lead it.  
2. The other option is for the Bible Discussion Group to officially become a UCA activity, while retaining its open membership. Under this option it would continue to be made clear that the discussions are open to all Unitarians, regardless of affiliation. Participants would not need to be Christians, theists, or to be members of the UCA. We would then close the BDG Facebook group(s) and arrange/advertise forthcoming discussions in the Facebook group UCA Worship. Membership of this group is currently open only to UCA members, but we would change this so that membership was extended to UCA members and participants in UCA related activities (Sunday worship and the Bible Discussion Group). It would not be open to people who are not UCA members and do not attend discussions or worship. 

The second option would not, of itself, mean that we had people to run the group. It would still need folk from the discussion group to get involved in running things. Perhaps we could make sure that we have leadership that includes someone who is in the UCA and someone who isn’t. 

But it would make things easier in the following ways. 

• The UCA would be able to retain funds, if necessary, for the discussion group.
• The UCA Officer Group could have a role in running the group, ideally someone who is part of the discussion group and a UCA member could become a UCA Officer to do this. 
• It would simplify the relationship between the UCA fellowship, which worships on Sunday, and the Monday discussions, particularly with regard to Facebook groups. It seems natural for a fellowship to have worship and bible discussions, arranged and communicated in one body and in one online space. 
• The UCA could use its membership list and various media to recruit new members and discussion leaders, as well as to publicise discussions and talks. 

I genuinely don’t mind which of these options occurs. I’d me more than happy for the Bible Discussion Group to stay completely independent, but if this is going to happen then folk are going to have to step up and take the responsibility for running it away from me. 

If we decide to become part of the UCA, that would make life a bit easier for me, but I’d still be looking for new leadership from within the group. 

We may not decide everything, in detail, on Monday evening, but we could really do with getting a strong indication of which direction we want to go in. 

Look forward to hearing your thoughts, everybody.

Francis

Join Zoom Meeting

https://us06web.zoom.us/j/82378042367?pwd=REgrU1Y5MlI4dWFPMk1RVkYvOEpWQT09

Meeting ID: 823 7804 2367

Passcode: 460019