TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ................................................................. 3

Establishment of the Learning Team........................................... 5

Learning Team Process and Chronology..................................... 6

Results of Congregation Survey.................................................10 

Key Learnings from Survey and Other Sources............................15

Barriers to Growth.....................................................................16

Facilitators of Growth.................................................................19

Recommendations.....................................................................20

Appendix 1 (Learning Team Covenant).........................................22

Appendix 2 (summary of mini-retreat themes)...............................23

Appendix 3 (quantitative summary of survey results.......................26

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The North Unitarian Universalist Congregation Board of Trustees established a six-member Learning Team in October, 2004 to discern the congregation's attitudes toward growth and help define its vision of the future. The Learning Team was guided in its work by Raising the Roof, a book that describes the difficulties that religious congregations experience when they make a transition from a pastoral congregation (usually under 150 members where the pastor is the focal point of the church) and a program congregation where members provide a large array of quality services. The process of discernment was made with no preconceived ideas and with a desire to involve the congregation in multiple ways.

From November, 2004 until May, 2005, the Learning Team sought and collected information on the current state of the congregation and perceptions of its near-term future. The team held a congregational mini-retreat, led a worship service, established an Internet discussion list, surveyed congregants through a series of focus groups, and collected statistics about attendance, membership, and the surrounding community.

Our findings suggest the following:

• Our congregation is in the plateau zone between a pastoral-sized and program-sized congregation
• Congregants like Sunday worship, Susan's ministry, and the friendliness of the congregation
• Congregants dislike our limited space, lack of connectedness, and absence of certain programs
• The majority of congregants desire incremental growth in membership.
• Congregants hope for improved facilities, more and better programs, greater membership commitment in terms of finances and involvement but WITHOUT losing the connectedness and friendliness we value so much

The Learning Team has identified barriers to growth as well as facilitators that can make growth more likely. The barriers to growth are:

The facilitators for growth include:

• An outstanding minister
• Quality of the congregants
• Rapid growth in the surrounding community
• History of congregational perseverance
• Our building (rural setting, historic country church)
• Quality of our worship services
• Uniqueness of Unitarian Universalism
• Support growth has from NUUC leaders

The Learning Team provides in this report a set of recommendations that address the specific problems we face as well as procedures by which the congregation and its leaders can be educated and supported through the near-term transition we face. They are:

• More space is needed
• Staffing changes to support a shift from a pastoral church to a program church are necessary
• Financial resources must be increased
• Community outreach (evangelism and social justice) must be developed
• A conscious process of leadership development must be implemented
• Our sense of identity and feelings of intimacy as a community must be preserved
• Discussions  on growth must continue

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE LEARNING TEAM

The Raising the Roof Learning Team had its origins in a fortunate synchronicity, and was brought to fruition by the efforts of President Martha Filipic. During January of 2004, Martha (then Vice-President), President Jeff McCallister, and Rev. Susan Ritchie discussed the possibility of acquiring additional land adjacent to the church. There was concern that the need for a decision regarding the land might come before there would be opportunity to clarify a shared view of our future as a congregation.  There was additional concern that the board, consumed by the demands of regular business, was not well positioned to establish the long range goals that would prove vital to any thoughts of expansion.  Meanwhile, both the Board and Minister were expressing confusions regarding the appropriate roles and responsibilities of the Board, of the Minister, of lay leaders, and of church committees.

Martha, Jeff, and Susan began to wonder if these issues might not all be a symptom of church size transition.  During the conversation, Martha recalled seeing a flyer in the mail for a workshop on such themes called "Raising the Roof."  Susan then went to the shelves to pull down a book she had read over sabbatical, Alice Mann's Raising the Roof: The Pastoral to Program Sized Transition. 

On Feb. 21, 2004, Susan, Jeff, and Martha shared their concerns and their conversation with the board.  Susan gave a quick summary of the book.  The board was interested, and asked to hear more.  During the board meeting in March, Martha shared more about the book and its assumption that congregational growth, especially at certain significant size transitions, was a process that was best prepared for by a careful discernment of the congregation's potential and desire for growth.  The board decided at that meeting that they would all read Raising the Roof and discuss it at the next board meeting. 

In April of 2004, the board articulated its desire to pursue an intentional process of discernment regarding growth with the purpose of defining the congregation's vision of its future. In order to involve the congregation in the conversation, the board asked now- President Martha Filipic to offer two lay views during worship in May, to be followed by town hall meetings with open discussion.   During June and July, the board reviewed the responses from the congregational meeting.  During the August meeting of the board, the Board by unanimous vote decided to proceed with the process of discernment and definition as laid out in Alice Mann's book.  This included the formation of a Learning Team which would make specific recommendations to the board relative to its assessment of the congregation's desire and readiness for growth.

Following the recommendation of the Mann book, the board set out to form a Learning Team of five to seven persons, which was to consist of the minister in addition to four to six experienced lay leaders who enjoyed the respect and trust of the congregation.  Each member of the board brought five names to the September board meeting of persons they felt met these criteria.  The board found that the same people were named with great consistency.    Martha and Susan set out to jointly recruit the leaders so named, and by October, Teri Cornell, Allison Fagan, Dick Leavy, Gerymayne Tizzano, and Kurt Zielenbach had all committed to the Learning Team. 

THE LEARNING TEAM'S PROCESS AND CHRONOLOGY

The purpose of this section is to provide an overview of the process the Learning Team used to achieve the board's charge.  The Learning Team's first objective was to develop a timeline for the completion of its tasks so that a final report could be written within five to six months. It met monthly to plan ways to inform the congregation of its work, solicit information, identify barriers to congregational growth as well as facilitators, analyze the data and develop a set of recommendations that would be reported to the board. As of this report, we met eight times for these purposes and conducted additional congregational events outlined in this document.

In October, 2004 when the Learning Team was constituted, the membership of NUUC stood at 124. In the eight months since that date, we have added 21 new members and lost 8. So currently, NUUC membership stands at 137. If we add the 18 individuals we list as "friends" of the congregation our full complement (155) puts us in the plateau zone between a pastoral and program-sized church.

The following is a summary of the major events implemented by the Learning Team:

November 17, 2004

Learning Team Meeting with Board President, Martha Filipic

            During this meeting the team's charge was reviewed and clarified and a group exercise was done to assess the perception of whether the church is at a plateau between a pastoral-sized congregation and a program-sized congregation as defined by Alice Mann.  In addition, Rev. Susan Ritchie provided a history of the congregation in order to gain perspective of how we got where we are today.  There was agreement that we meet the criteria of a "pastoral church." In order to insure hearing the opinions of congregational opinion leaders, a list was names was generated at this meeting with the intent of inviting these people to a mini-retreat on growth open to the full congregation. We also decided to develop a map to indicate the geographical distribution of our congregants, organize a presentation for the upcoming board meeting and outline steps and dates for the upcoming six months.

December 11, 2004

Learning Team Presentation at December Board of Trustees Meeting

            Prior to this meeting, the Learning Team decided that in order to emphasize its goal of discerning the congregation's perception of change rather than imposing a decision, it would maximize the opportunities for congregational input. For instance, the team decided to write a special covenant for the discernment process which would be recited with the congregation at gatherings and be included in articles written in the congregational newsletter. The covenant is in Appendix 1 of this report.

            The meeting with the Board had many purposes. One was to review with them the terminology Mann uses concerning congregation size categories and to reiterate the Board's charge to the Learning Team. The Learning Team led the Board in a recitation of the Learning Team Covenant. We then reviewed and discussed evidence that NUUC is at a plateau between a pastoral- and program-sized congregation. For example, we presented worship attendance figures from August, 2004 until mid-December, 2004 indicating that more than 80 percent of the desirable seats in the sanctuary are taken during an average Sunday service. Our desirable sanctuary seating is roughly 95; an average Sunday brings in nearly 90 adults and children. This, says Mann, gives a visitor the impression that there is no room for them and limits future growth.

February 5, 2005

Congregational Mini-Retreat 

            Learning Team members invited the congregation to attend a mini-retreat with special emphasis on insuring that a large number of Learning Team-identified church leaders would attend. The retreat was advertised by a newsletter piece, announcements from the pulpit on multiple Sundays, and an all-congregational email. There were 26 in attendance as well as the 6 Learning Team members. Members of the Learning Team led this three-hour retreat which provided information about the size category of the congregation, described the concept of a plateau zone and discussed the signs that we are at that point (including the Sunday worship attendance chart shown at the Board meeting). We also wanted to learn how the history of the congregation is perceived, so participants were divided into three groups each examining the issues NUUC faced in a specific era. Intentionally, participants who were long-term members and newly-arrived visitors were mixed in each group. The three eras were Early (1987-1994), Middle (1994-2000), and Present (2000-2005).

            Each group recorded the impressions of participants concerning the major factors facing the congregation during the period it assessed. The whole group came together to discuss what was learned and a spirited discussion of our calling or mission ensued. At the end of the retreat, the participants were assured that a summary of the discussion would be written and shared with the full congregation. The Learning Team also indicated the next steps that would be taken in the discernment process.

February 26, 2005

Completion and dissemination of the Mini-Retreat Executive Summary

            The executive summary of the mini-retreat was written in large font and posted on a bulletin board in Fellowship Hall. It was also reproduced in the March NUUC newsletter. Congregants were encouraged to talk with Learning Team members about their impressions of the document. The complete summary is provided in Appendix 2 of this report.

March 13, 2005

Learning Team Lay Service to the Congregation

            Three Learning Team members, Teri Cornell, Allison Fagan, and Richard Leavy led this lay service.  The theme of the service was change and how we adapt to it. In the context of the congregation facing the possibility of change, each described personal examples of how they had made important decisions concerning change. Allison led the congregation through a guided visualization of how people saw the church five years from now so we could generate later conversation about congregants' hopes and concerns about growth. At the end of the message Dick encouraged each person in the audience to become involved in this learning process by participating in later group discussions, talking personally to members of the Learning Team or joining an online discussion group designed for this purpose. The names and phone numbers of the Learning Team members were provided as well as the process of joining the discussion group.

March, 2005

Display of Map Indicating Members and Friends' Residences

            Dick Leavy developed a map of Central Ohio with the location of our church at roughly its center and the Sawmill Road location of the Davis Middle School (former location of the congregation's worship services until 2000) also indicated. Then the residence of all current members and friends of the congregation were noted on the map. Two conclusions could be drawn from the map: 1) we draw members and friends from a very wide territory and 2) most of our newer members and friends live much nearer Lewis Center than the Sawmill Road area. This map was displayed in Fellowship Hall for approximately one month to disseminate this information.  

March-May, 2005

Completion of Learning Team Communications Infrastructure and Congregational Survey

            Over several weeks the Learning Team made available an electronic bulletin board and email systems so that congregation members and friends could not only indicate to the team their perceptions and opinions but communicate with one another. When rather little discussion ensued, the team began a discussion "thread" focused on the similarities and differences between NUUC and First Church in Columbus. This led to some active discussion, but only for a short period. An additional, more direct way of surveying the congregation proved more effective.

            The team developed a survey instrument in which participants were asked the following open-ended questions:

            In addition, we asked what the participant felt was the right size for NUUC, the calling or mission of the congregation, and the features that make NUUC a distinctive congregation.

            In order to survey a representative sample of the congregation, we identified the following key groups and arranged for one Learning Team member (preferably a person known by that group) to conduct a 30-60 survey during one of its scheduled meetings. The thirteen groups surveyed were, in alphabetical order:

1.      the Adult Religious Education Committee

2.     the Canvass Committee

3.     the Choir

4.     the Creativity Fellowship group

5.      the Finance Committee

6.      the Land Acquisition Committee

7.      the Membership Committee

8.      parents of youth and children

9.      the Religious Education (children's) Committee

10.  Religious Education teachers

11.  the Social Committee

12.  the Third Friday Social Group

13.  the Worship Committee

            Individuals who were members of more than one group were surveyed only once. All Board members were covered by surveying these groups. Members of the congregation who were not part of these groups or unavailable to attend a meeting were invited to participate in one of several special focus groups held after church. Forty-five congregants participated in the various focus groups. The data were assessed in two ways. Two members of the Learning Team read each of the survey responses and identified major themes. A set of mind maps were drawn to indicate these themes and their relationships to one another. A third member of the team did an independent quantitative analysis by tallying each response that could be clustered into a category. What is presented in the Results section of this report is a combination of these two methods. Refer to Appendix 2 for the quantitative summary.

May 25, 2005

Learning Team Summarizing Meeting

            This meeting allowed the Learning Team to find consensus on many important issues facing the congregation. Using information from the congregational mini-retreat, discussion group input, individual conversations with congregants and the results of the focus group surveys we identified the congregation's overall readiness for growth, the barriers that might thwart growth, and factors that might facilitate it. The team next looked at the overall pattern of hopes and fears about the future expressed by the congregation and, coupled with the team's own impressions, developed a list of recommendations to be shared with the Board in this report.

Forthcoming activities:

June 18, 2005

Presentation of Learning Team recommendations to Board

Summer/Fall, 2005

            Based on the response of the Board to this report and any subsequent discussions with the Learning Team, a final version of this report will be produced. At that point, the Board will decide how the information and recommendations in the report can best be disseminated to the congregation. It is the Learning Team's hope that there will be a congregational meeting at which time a wide ranging discussion of the future of the congregation will be held. 

RESULTS OF CONGREGATION SURVEY

            Survey participants were interviewed either in groups or individually to learn what they like and dislike about NUUC currently and what they hope and fear about the near-term future of the congregation. Participants were assured that their remarks would be held in confidence and that only group data would be used for the purpose of discerning the current status and future direction of NUUC. Each Learning Team members who did a survey copied the participants' comments as closely to verbatim as possible.

            Because participants typically mentioned more than one feature for each question, we obtained far more than 45 ideas for some topics. Specifically, there were 80 ideas mentioned in response to the question, "What do you like/love about NUUC currently?" There were 61 comments for "What do you dislike about NUUC currently?;" 70 for "What do you hope for in the future?;" but only 42 comments for "What do you fear will happen in the future?" The Learning Team found it interesting and important that there were more responses to what was liked/loved vs. disliked.  There were also more responses to what is hoped for than what is feared.

KEY LEARNINGS FROM SURVEY AND OTHER SOURCES

            Congregants see our Sunday worship services as a great asset but hope we can improve on what we do the rest of the week. They love Susan's sermons as well as those given by laypersons. They greatly enjoy the music provided by Nathan Hamm, Marlene Metz, and the choir. Despite the severe limitations of the physical space, religious education is viewed positively. The simplicity of our church building is another feature that makes Sunday special. What we do not do so well is involve ourselves in activities the other six days of the week. There is a desire for programs of all kinds--- adult religious education, youth-oriented activities, social get-togethers, social justice work, and so on. If the congregation successfully moves from a pastoral congregation to a program congregation, the growth in the number and quality of these programs will be evident.

            Almost without exception, congregants described what they love about NUUC as its friendliness. We see ourselves as down-to-earth and warm. Many have found and nurtured long-term relationships among members and friends of NUUC. They value the informal ministering to one another. Perhaps because this is so valued, while some remarked on this as an asset, others commented on the lack of pastoral care in the congregation. While some noted that we are tolerant of differences, others mentioned that they sometimes feel left out. In short, while we are friendly, we could improve our sense of community and better care for each other at times other than Sunday services.

            Susan was widely seen as an outstanding minister. Congregants value her intellect, her warm touch, and her sensitivity to the congregation's needs. One of the fears mentioned in surveys was that of losing her because of inadequate pay, boredom, or for other reasons. As the pastor in a pastoral congregation, she is the pivot point in both traditional ministerial activities as well as more administrative ones. As we move to a program format, we need to support her better with administrative staff and have congregation members take on more of the program load. In this way a partnership can develop between Susan and congregants to release the gifts of members and encourage their ownership of NUUC's programs.

            While some of the programs offered by the congregation are seen as being very strong, there is a desire for a more of them and of greater diversity. Adult religious education programs were given high marks as well as children's RE. However, we could improve on pastoral care, outreach to the surrounding community, social justice work, a coming-of-age program for youth, the incorporation of new memberships into programs, and leadership development. All of this will require a greater commitment from congregants in terms of both money and time. Leaders in the congregation were particularly likely to be concerned that having too few volunteers would lead to burnout and that continued financial shortfalls and lack of pledge follow-through endangered the hopes of the congregation. Money and effort can produce positive changes; we need to increase both.

            In general, the congregation wants to experience incremental --- not radical --- growth in membership and programs. Many see it as only fitting that the benefits of belonging to this denomination and congregation be extended to others. Growth in membership of about 50%, from our current number of approximately 140 to around 200, is seen as desirable by most those who offered a numerical answer to "what is the right size for our congregation?" Others see size as less important than how we grow in effectiveness. Regardless, there are two strongly-held concerns about our future. One is the desperate need to improve our physical facilities including parking capacity, bathrooms, RE space, and sanctuary seating. A repeated comment was, "If we grow, where will we put the new people?" The acquisition of land for parking, septic system, and new buildings is an immediate and prime requirement. The second imperative is that we protect our relationships despite growing larger. A common theme was to find ways to retain our smallness within a larger organization. Growing is something we want, but not at the sacrifice of the relationships we hold dear.

BARRIERS TO GROWTH

The Learning Team identified six factors that will present barriers to the growth of NUUC unless they are mitigated or eliminated. Most of these barriers are quite common for churches in a plateau state between pastoral- and program-sized congregations. The Learning Team feels that if growth strategies are formulated and executed by NUUC leadership with these barriers in mind, our congregation will be better able to grow into a program-sized church while maintaining the things that congregants feel make the current church beloved and special. The barriers listed below are seen as having approximately equal importance.

Our space is effectively "filled up."  --  Virtually any place you look at NUUC, our physical space is used up.  Religious education space for children, office and work space, and parking are all particularly tight, but fellowship space, restroom space, storage areas and even the sanctuary are too small to encourage any real growth.

RE Space: Our youth population is already too large for effective RE programming in the space we have. While the partitions help some, the sheer number of people and sound volume from their activities are constant distractions to adjacent classes. Problems with distraction and sound spill over into the worship service, where the enthusiasm of young children is often heard during quiet moments of worship. The fact that children and teachers needing to use the restrooms must walk through the sanctuary is another disruption of worship.

 

Office Space: While the Minister's office space is barely adequate, there is no real space for additional paid staff in our current layout. The small "multi-purpose" room that serves as an auxiliary office, mail room, and storage area cannot also accommodate a fulltime administrative or program staff member.

 

Restroom Space: While we do not know the correct ratio of toilets to members, it is obvious that 2 seats are not adequate for worship services that average 90 in the audience. In addition to quantity of seats, our restroom issues also encompass reliability (due to ongoing septic issues), handicap accessibility, and location.

 

Parking: If it is impossible for someone to arrive five minutes before church and find a convenient place to park, you have a parking problem.  This is especially a problem in cold or foul weather as well as for nighttime church events.

 

Sanctuary: Worship space is effectively filled up when 80% of "good" seats are full on a regular basis. Newcomers do not generally want to have to climb over people for middle pew seats or be on display by heading for the front row.  When this happens, it sends a signal of "no room for me here" to visitors. We are well past the 80% mark on most Sundays, until the children leave for RE classes.

We are not staffed for growth.  --  Churches that are about the same size of NUUC usually employ a part-time administrative assistant as well as part-time janitorial staff/services and a paid music staff.  Churches just a bit larger (150) frequently will employ a half-time position on the program side (such as DREM) as well as increasing the administrative support and musician's hours. 

Our congregation is currently planning to provide some added office support. This is a good development but until the position is established we see the administrative side of the congregation as understaffed, impeding growth. Lack of office support impedes the minister's capacity to provide pastoral care and will further impede her work as we become a program church.

 

We have had a spotty record filling a part-time position for the Director of Religious Education Ministries. This is likely related to the budgeting, the next barrier to change we address.

Our concept of an adequate budget does not permit growth.  --  Our congregation has failed to meet budget goals for the last several years. There is justifiable concern about our ability to raise sufficient money to support existing staff, facilities, and programs let alone additional ones. Church leaders responsible for the budgeting process are likely to feel additional stress if this continues and we attempt to grow.

Our focus is predominately inward in nature.  --  While one of our members' most-loved characteristics of NUUC is being part of a tolerant, diverse, and friendly congregational community, our lack of outward focus will thwart growth initiatives. We have very few intentional programs or initiatives in place to "spread the word" about Unitarian Universalism in the surrounding community.

It is worth noting that in a major research study[1], congregations were placed in three broad groupings, classified by their sense of purpose.  Group A congregations had strong  outward focus and "constantly (sought) ways to communicate with people outside of their religious community." Generally these congregations increased their financial support and brought in members who were previously un-churched. A second group (Group B1) was congregations "interested" in reaching out beyond their current membership, but lacking real plans or methods for doing so. Group B2 churches made clear their focus on themselves. Both B1 and B2 churches saw "stability or decreases in financial support, increases in financial problems, few or no members who were previously un-churched, increases in the average age of members, and decreases in membership (p. 21)" We seem to be a B1-type congregation.

 

Faith Connections:  Traditionally, NUUC has not made use of resources available through the UUA or the Ohio-Meadville District. We are not linked to UU congregations that could provide us with guidance on how to manage our growth.

 

Social Justice: An active, well-funded, and well-supported social justice program can not only make the world a better place but provide a vehicle for reaching out to the broader community. NUUC has always been reluctant to support such a program.

Our ministry infrastructure is inadequate for movement to the next size.  --  Without excellent organizational machinery in place, the intimacy and personal touch that is beloved in a pastoral church is difficult if not impossible as a church grows.  NUUC does not have adequate procedures in place to:

• Successfully incorporate and assimilate new members into the inner workings for the church
• Develop member ministry (otherwise known as volunteer management) through identification and release of "gifts" of all volunteers through placement on the committee or activity
• Provide pastoral care that is uniformly seen as effective
• Develop a large number of varied small-group ministries
• Foster leadership development

We are geographically "spread-out".  --  Since Unitarian Universalism is a small denomination, it is nearly inevitable that people from a large geographic region will comprise any one church's membership. Located outside a densely populated city, our membership is even more spread out. Only a handful of our members travel less than 5 miles to attend church and some travel more than 35 miles. Our dispersion makes it difficult for us to find the time to attend non-Sunday activities; it also reduces our social action involvement in a needy community. This barrier could be one of the main drivers of the "lack of connectedness" many congregants feel outside of the Sunday worship experience.

FACILITATORS OF GROWTH

            In addition to identifying barriers to change, the Learning Team identifies several current and future factors that might make the transition to a program church easier.  As with the barriers to change, these thematic elements emerged from the data gathering processes.

Our minister  Over and over again, we heard that our congregation feels extraordinarily fortunate to have the Rev. Dr. Susan Ritchie as our minister.  She has strengths in multiple areas--- intellectual, interpersonal, spiritual.  In addition, she supports our community's goal to grow and become less dependent upon her or a future minister.

The quality of our congregants   We are a bright, kind, and welcoming group of people.  We're interesting and interested, and good at listening to each other's ideas.  We are also an age-diverse group.  Regardless of their age, a visitor will see a similar-aged individual in the pews.  These characteristics make us attractive to newcomers.

Location  We are situated in one of the fastest growing counties in Ohio. New, upper-middle class housing communities surround us. Between 1990 and 2000, while Ohio's population grew at 4 percent, Delaware County's grew at 64 percent, 16 times faster. Olentangy School District, the district that maps onto our ministry area, expects total enrollments to increase from 9,462 in 2005 to 14,181 in 2010. The District hopes to open one new elementary school in each of the fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009; to open a new middle school in 2008 and a new high school in 2009. Situated in the midst of such growth suggests the clear likelihood of attracting members new to the area.  

Our history of perseverance  One of the long-standing characteristics of our congregation is our perseverance. We were incorporated in 1986 (with 20 charter members, as a friendly off-shoot of the First Unitarian Universalist Church of Columbus) with the goal of increasing the spread of Unitarian Universalism.   We have existed from our beginning with a vision of growth.   This vision has required us to fight through financial challenges that restricted our ability to act on our vision.   Our challenge to find a permanent church home required that we persevere through the hope and disappointment of building on our Sawmill Road property, and then endure a series of frustrating real estate transactions in order to purchase our current building.  The struggle persists concerning the desire to purchase additional land around us to permit growth. Our history is one of trusting in a collective vision for growth.

Our building  We like our small, unpretentious, historic country church.  It communicates who we are with simplicity, warmth, and elegance. It adds to the sense of welcome that newcomers and established congregants feel when they interact with our members.

The quality of our Sunday Morning Service  We do Sunday mornings well.  Given that this is a common first exposure for visitors to our congregation, this is a strong facilitator for growth.  We welcome people warmly, provide a clear message of pastoral care and fellowship, have beautiful and moving music, and provide consistently good sermons, whether offered by professional or lay voices. 

Liberal religious perspective  Unitarian Universalism offers a liberal religious alternative to other offerings in the church marketplace.  We have a product to offer that is unique.

Leadership support  Our formal and informal circle of church leaders is open to change. Our leadership initiated the Learning Team effort, they did not resist it. In short, the opinion leaders of the congregation support growth. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

We need more space.   We will not be able to grow unless we increase our space and facilities.  We do not have ample space for our children's religious education classes, fellowship after services, parking, or accessible bathrooms.   Desirable seating in the sanctuary is filled on an average Sunday, creating the image of us being at capacity for visitors. At special events such as Christmas Eve and Easter, the sanctuary is inadequate. Religious education space is unacceptably small nearly every Sunday. If the space problem is not resolved, we will not grow because we cannot grow.

We need staffing changes to support a shift from a pastoral church to a program church.  In order to grow, we need to hire an administrative assistant to relieve the minister of routine office tasks.  A full-time administrative assistant becomes essential at a membership level of approximately 200 people.  Approaching that size, the minister needs to be freed of administrative responsibilities so that her/his work can shift to a gift-based ministry.  Such a shift asks the minister to move from a primarily pastoral role, wherein the minister delivers the entire ministry, to a gift-based member ministry designed to release the talents that exist within our membership for service to our congregation.  After administrative staffing changes our met, the next logical hire would be for a full-time Director of Religious Education Ministries (DREM).  

We need more money.  Our current finance models do not support growth.  We recommend that the Finance Committee study "veteran" program churches, reaching out for guidance to change how we allocate our resources.  It is essential that we re-visit our budgeting model and canvass process.  To do this will require that we take advantage of our district resources and network with congregations that have been through this growth process.

We need to improve our community outreach (marketing).  As a congregation we are uncomfortable proselytizing or evangelizing our beliefs.  In this discomfort, we fail to let outsiders know that we exist and who we are.    We recommend increasing our advertising.  In addition, we recommend identifying a church-wide social justice project.  Our involvement in an identifiable project increases our community recognition.  We also recommend increased community outreach. As a way to invite people to visit us, each program committee should consider publicizing to the public programs with broad-based appeal.  We did this successfully when Rev. Ritchie presented several lectures on cracking the DaVinci Code. 

We need to engage in a conscious process of leadership development.   Leader retreats should be planned to provide Board members and other leaders with in-depth understanding of the changes that are before us and the skills that are needed to make a transition to a program congregation. We would be wise to create links with other congregations who have successfully navigated this transition and take advantage of the consultation services available to us in the Ohio Meadville District.  Written materials on congregational leadership are also available for purchase, and should be considered.

We must protect against losing our sense of identity and feelings of connection.    We recommend the planful maintenance and creation of small groups, with new groups being created with regular frequency and established groups being made penetrable to new members.  This will maintain our intimacy and improve how we incorporate new members into our community.  We also recommend reviewing our committee structure for the purpose of preventing burnout of our leaders and over-empowering formal leaders. Alice Mann, whose expertise guided the Learning Team's work, has written, "Today's program-size churches do better when they have fewer, smaller standing committees but many more small teams, each passionate about a very particular ministry within the congregation or to the wider community" (Raising the Roof, p. 29).  Further, our current method of bringing concerns to a committee chair or to the Board president asks that formal leader to act as a buffer between the community and the committee they chair.  This process may give the leader too much power, increase leader burn-out and reduce the power of the individual who voiced the concern since their issue is only addressed if the chair presents it accurately and rapidly to the full committee. A different way of doing business might require the individual to participate in the process by presenting their own concern to the full committee of jurisdiction.

We need to increase awareness and continue discussions of our desire to grow.   This report needs to be disseminated throughout the congregation. Congregational meetings should be held to discuss the Learning Team's findings, analysis, and recommendations.  A mechanism should be created to continue discussions about growth in Board meetings, committee meetings, and other group settings. Further, we should monitor our progress in meeting the goals we set for ourselves. In other words, this report is not an end, but the beginning of a visionary growth process.

Appendix 1

The Learning Team Covenant

We gather with you in love and fellowship. We covenant to listen to each other with open ears, to look at each other with open eyes, and to speak to each other with honest hearts, so that we can, as a community, discern a path for our congregation's future.

Appendix 2

North Unitarian Universalist Congregation

Mini-Retreat on Congregational Change

Executive Summary

Learning Team Members:

Teri Cornell

Allison Fagan

Dick Leavy

Rev. Susan Ritchie

Germayne Tizzano

Kurt Zielenbach

Retreat held February 5, 2005

The mini-retreat's 26 participants discussed in large and small groups the congregation's past and present so that we might take planful steps into the future. In this process of discernment, the Learning Team prompted opinions about our desired size and distinctive mission. We took notes on the discussion, summarizing the main themes in this report. This document is not an unofficial "history" of the congregation nor is it an attempt to persuade the congregation in any particular direction. Our goals in writing it are to convey to those who could not attend what transpired, and to spark continued conversation so that an informed decision about the congregation's future can be made.

North Unitarian Universalist Congregation (originally Dublin UU Church) was founded in 1987, the welcomed child of First UU Church of Columbus. For its first 13 years, we met at the Davis Middle School off Sawmill Road. We moved to Lewis Center in 2000.

We have been an ambitious congregation.  Even in the earliest years we saw ourselves as a family-friendly church with aspirations for being a program-sized church. As a family-sized church we hired a music director. When there were few members there were many committees. Through numerous challenges the church's leadership has been optimistic about growth. 

We have been a congregation in search of the right size and place.  The fact that every aspect of worship had to be transported and constructed anew each Sunday in Davis Middle School drained energy and made survival the main focus of the church. We were not big enough to do everything we wanted to do. Because we were located off the main highway, we were hard for visitors to find. We have experienced "churn" in membership even as total numbers increased and then plateaued---we attracted new members but lost a lesser number--- and this has been a concern. During this time, some congregants thought 100 people was the right size for our church, but more believed we needed to grow so that there would be less burnout and more outreach. Having our own place seemed the solution. 

We are a congregation that wants to define its calling.  Now that we have our building, we find ourselves returning to the initial challenge of being or wanting to be simultaneously a family-sized, pastoral (intermediate)-sized, and program-sized church. We want a congregation small enough to serve the personal needs of members but large enough to do what we "ought" to do: address social justice concerns and bring in those who otherwise would not be accepted in a religious congregation. We are unclear what our distinctive calling is. We seem clear that we do not want to become like First Church, even though we are hard-pressed to articulate what is wrong with First Church and what is right about our current size.

We are in a state of ambivalence.  We are committed to our congregation and a general desire to serve those people who have not found us and don't know they are UUs. We are frustrated with the constraints of our building, parking, and finances but anxious about enlarging our capacity. We want to offer more services to our members and the wider world, but we worry about burning out those already providing those services. A major question remains: Can we keep those things we cherish about NUUC if we grow substantially? Like most 18-year-olds, we are anxious to assess what we do well and poorly; we want to define our identity and prepare our future.

Appendix 3

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS

What you like/love about NUUC currently

            Total mentions:  80

Rank                                                                            Percentage of all mentions

1.         Friendliness of the people..................................            18.8%

2.         Tolerance, diversity, intergenerational...............             16.3%

3.         Susan and her sermons.......................................          13.8%

5.         The building.......................................................             8.8%

5.         Music.................................................................            8.8%

6.         Intimate size.......................................................             6.3%

7.         Lay services.......................................................            5.0%

Other................................................................................       18.4%

What you dislike about NUUC currently

            Total mentions:  61

Rank                                                                            Percentage of all mentions

1.         Inadequate space (RE and in general).................           11.3%

3.         Lack of concern for people................................             9.8% 

3.         Too little social interaction................................               9.8%

5.         Insufficient committee involvement/commitment..              6.6%

5.         Location too far from home...................................          6.6.%

8.         Inadequate bathrooms...........................................         4.9%

8.         Money worries......................................................         4.9%

8.         Too few youths or youth programs......................            4.9%

10.       Lack of service outreach.......................................          3.3%

10.       Parking...................................................................        3.3%

Other.................................................................................      34.6%

What you hope for in the future?

            Total mentions:  70

Rank                                                                            Percentage of all mentions

1.         Better RE and youth ministry...............................          14.3%

3.         Larger space...........................................................     12.9%

3.         More members........................................................     12.9%

4.         Better connections within and outside cong............        10.0%

5.         More service outreach............................................        8.6%

6.         Improved parking....................................................     7.1%

7.         Additional staff.......................................................      5.7%

Other...................................................................................     28.5%

What you fear will happen in the future?

            Total mentions:  42

Rank                                                                            Percentage of all mentions        

1.         Become impersonal................................................      14.3%

5.         We lose Susan.........................................................      9.5%