Central and St. John’s United Churches Joint Growth and Development Committee

1. Central and St. John’sUnited ChurchesJoint Growth and Development Committee May 14, 2014

2. Background • St. John’s and Central United Churches have been a very important part of the community of Stratford since the 1840’s. • With a decline in membership over the years, both churches have experienced: • increased volunteer burnout • reduced financial support/regular income • limited ability to offer support and assistance to members • With dwindling youth attendance, both churches have been left with an uncertain future.

3. Background Continued… • January 2013 the first Joint Growth and Development Committee (JGDC) was formed to explore three options: remaining separate congregations, sharing resources, and amalgamation • Over three months, the committee of 12, 5 from Central and 7 from St. John’s, met five times. • Each meeting was filled with energy and excitement about the endless possibilities that could be realized together. • Each church presented a recommendation to council in April 2013 to amalgamate with an outlined timeline. • Central’s council passed the recommendation • St. John’s council tabled the recommendation for further study

4. Background Continued… • As part of the interim ministry work, the committee was reformed in March 2014 with the support of both congregations. • The current committee includes 12 volunteers, 7 from Central and 5 from St. John’s. • A similar mandate for the ongoing work of the committee was approved by both congregations. • The committee felt that to make further recommendations it needed to thoroughly examine the positives and negatives of the three options it faced: remaining separate congregations, shared ministry, and amalgamating into a new congregation.

5. Option #1: Two Separate Churches • St. John’s and Central remain separate churches and communities

6. Option #1: Two Separate ChurchesPROS • Familiar / predictable • Identification with a local neighbourhood • Maintain current community use of buildings • Historical identity • Maintain the current church community

7. Option #1: Two Separate ChurchesCONS • Volunteer burnout • Stress of worrying about the future • Lack of an effective vision for the future • Decline in small group activities • Aging congregation • Lack of youth activities • Few new members • Staffing issues – not enough staff to accomplish all of the churches priorities • Building expenses taking away time and energy for fellowship, mission, and other priorities • Financial Concerns

8. Option #2: Shared Resources • separate congregations with shared ministers and some staff

9. Option #2: Shared ResourcesPROS • Small budget advantages – staff sharing • Familiar / predictable • Identification with a local neighbourhood • Maintain current community use of buildings • Historical identity • Maintain the current church community

10. Option #2: Shared ResourcesCONS • Volunteer burnout • Hesitant to attend activities that are not based in own church • Not getting that energy or fresh outlook that is needed • Stress of worrying about the future remains • Lack of an effective vision for the future remains • Lack of small group activities • Aging congregation • Lack of youth activities • Few new members • Staffing issues – still not enough staff to accomplish all of the priorities for two churches • Building expenses taking away time and energy for mission • Financial Concerns

11. Option #3: Amalgamation • creation of a new congregation with respect to our individual heritages • one church, one congregation, one mission, one vision, one budget, one staff

12. Option #3: AmalgamationPROS • New energy with more people • Reduce the stress of worrying about the future • Realize our visions and dreams for the future • More varied activities for all ages • Increase peer interactions for youth and have more specialized programming • Allow for more specialized roles of staff to accomplish church’s priorities • Significant reduction in overall expenses (building, staffing) allowing for more focus on mission, fellowship, and other priorities • Reduce financial stress • Increase in number and variety of congregational members with a new energy could entice new membership

13. Option #3: AmalgamationCONS • Loss of familiarity and predictability • Fear of change • Loss of identification with a local neighbourhood • Loss of current community use of buildings • Change in current church community / congregation

14. Objectives for Decision-Making • To bring new energy, ideas, and a fresh outlook to our United Church community in Stratford. • To strengthen the outreach and the congregational life of the United Church community in Stratford. • To respect the heritage of our founding congregations. • To make sure our churches are adequately funded. With these objectives in mind, the JGDC weighed the benefits and drawbacks of the three options presented above.

15. JGDC Recommendation The members of the JGDC agreed unanimously that the following recommendation be put forward. • That St. John’s and Central church councils proceed to a congregational meeting to seek approval for developing an implementation plan for the amalgamation of St. John’s and Central United Churches. • With approval, final vote for amalgamation will be within six to eight months.

16. Proposed Next StepsTo be addressed with congregational support and input • Independent building and realtor assessments • Consider the impact on our community programs • Create a timeline for potential amalgamation by June 2016. • Create a new vision, mission statement, and core values together • Completion of a “Telling Our story” (replacing the JNAC) • Identifying symbols and artifacts reflecting our individual heritages • Create a new staffing model for congregational needs • Consider various governance structures • Shared worship services, Sunday schools, messy churches, committees etc… • Financial review