A number of people have expressed to me their confusion about the difference between a Ministerial Relations Committee and a Committee on Ministry, so I thought this would be a good place to clarify that for everyone.
The idea that a congregation should have a committee to support the minister is deeply rooted in our Christian history and the very old idea that the minister, while fully human, was inherently different from the rest of the congregation. It came from a belief that ministers were called by God and answerable only to God, and therefore needed to be distanced from the flock they were called to lead. An elected committee (which would have had one of many different names) acted as a protector of the minister.
Times and theology changed. Congregants’ relationships with ministers
turned into friendships among peers, so with the formation of the Unitarian
Universalist Association, each congregation was encouraged to form a
Ministerial Relations Committee. Their charge was to evaluate and
advocate for the minister. If they thought the minister was doing well,
they’d recommend a raise. Their job also included acting as buffer between
the minister and laypeople.
Whenever laypeople had concerns or complaints about the minister, they’d
take their grievance to the ministerial relations committee which would
subjectively assess the situation. If they determined the charge was worthy
of attention, they’d do something about it. For example, if they heard
repeatedly that the minister was sexually inappropriate or abusive they
would recommend that the board fire that minister. Or, if the grievance
seemed minor, they might choose to do nothing, and perhaps not even
mention the complaint to the minister.
Their job was to act as confidantes to the minister, and put themselves in
the middle of tensions between ministers and members of congregations.
The result was that there were a lot of unhealthy relationships where there
was a lot of talk about each other rather than conversation with each other.
Secrets could easily flourish. The few with direct relationships with
ministers had more power than the rest.
Now that we think of ministers as serving congregations rather than leading
a flock or being friends with everyone, we have a different model. The old
committees have been replaced with a Committee on Ministry (COM),
whose job is not to be triangulated into conflicts, but rather to encourage
and facilitate direct address, and to help find appropriate mediators when
conflict can’t be resolved by one-to-one conversation. So now, if a
congregant has a garden variety complaint or concern about the minister,
they are encouraged to go to the source. If the charge is serious, then the
COM brings in a mediator.
The primary job of the COM, though, is to keep a close eye on the whole
ministry, reviewing the performance of the whole congregation through the
lenses of worship, pastoral care, faith development, social justice and
community involvement. The goal of the COM is to ensure the
congregation is living into its mission, fulfilling its promises, and engaging in
healthy relationships that keep the congregation strong and vibrant.
The idea is that a congregation that becomes systematically healthier
grows numerically, because people want to be associated with emotionally
and spiritually mature organizations.
I’m happy to say that we have a wonderful COM here at the UU
Congregation of South County. Mary Finnegan chairs the committee that
also includes Nancy Rose, David Fulton, and Harry Buffum. We all meet
monthly.
If you have any questions about how the COM works, feel free to talk to
any one of them.
And if you have any questions about me, my ministry, or my work with you,
please feel free to talk to me. I’m always just an email or phone call away.
Or, feel free to drop by my church office on Tuesdays or Thursdays. We
can even speak very informally at my weekly community office hours I call
“Beverages and Banter.” You can find those dates, times and locations on
In Peace,
Rev Denis