PeaceBang

31 Comments

1. I have to concur. The broads scythe sweep of a number of Board actions, not limited the decimation of the Affiliates (think of the hand grenade thrown in the barrel of youth and young adult programming) may have done more damage to our movement than anything within memory.

   It comes after a decade or more of intense lobbying by a small but committed cadre of Congregational Polity fundamentalists. These same folks have long been the bastion of “Hate Boston” disdain. They also distrust General Assemblies as runaway bodies of self-selected political extremists and have campaigned to reduce them to bi-annual affairs stripped down to narrow business meetings of limited to congregational officers and ministers. They talk glowingly of “empowering congregations” and voluntary mutual support of clusters of congregations. It must have come as quite a surprise to these folks to discover that they had largely won over the Board and were able to accomplish many of their goals via the kind of coup from the center that they would have previously bitterly denounced.

   Will there be a revolt at General Assembly? Under the current rules is a revolt even possible? Have any of the announced candidates for President, possible challengers for moderator, or candidates for District representatives to the Board made clear statements in opposition to this tendency? Is holding hostage all of the good, even essential services provided by the UUA via a fundraising strike really the only tool left to us?

   Comment by Patrick Murfin — April 25, 2008 #

2. Patrick, I wonder if you’d care to name names. If the cadre is indeed small, it ought to be identifiable. If an opposition party is to be organized, they’ll need to know who their opposite numbers are. If this is indeed the most damaging development in living memory, there will need to be serious, long-term, coordinated action to steer the denomination in better directions.

   Comment by Jeff W. — April 25, 2008 #

3. ((( They also distrust General Assemblies as runaway bodies of self-selected political extremists and have campaigned to reduce them to bi-annual affairs stripped down to narrow business meetings of limited to congregational officers and ministers.)))

   I’d say there’s a lot of truth to that. I don’t necessarily want to take it that far, but I’d say there’s plenty of evidence that GA represents mostly the wealthier and more radical members of our denomination* rather than the majority and that trimming it down would be a good thing.

   While I don’t question the value of the religiously focused Independent Affiliates, I do wonder why the affiliation is necessary. Most of the religious groups have said it isn’t.

   I’m not necessarily a polity extremist, and I don’t hate Boston, but I do regularly question the political statements that the UUA makes in my name and I’m glad that the political groups (that I mostly agree with) will have to get their spiritual authority from something other than a bureaucratic designation.

   But yeah, Jeff, you better put me on your list. On the whole, I think I’m one of the people Patrick is talking about, though I have not actively involved myself in UUA machinations.

   CC

   *For a recent example, at GA 2006, the delegates felt the need to rewrite the Statement of Conscience on Global Warming that the congregations had approved because they felt it wasn’t strongly worded enough. If you liked it the way the congregations wanted it and couldn’t afford to attend, your voice was silenced.

   Comment by Chalicechick — April 25, 2008 #

4. First a disclaimer, I’m not a member of the UU. I grew up Catholic and am more or less what folks consider a “part-time” Catholic at this point. For those that don’t know, that is the polite term for one of those Catholics that generally only go to Mass on Easter and Christmas or for funerals and baptisms.
   What I want to comment on was the part where you talk about your feelings toward the “Special Sunday – give us money” directives that you receive and the fact that a small group of people made the decision for the entire community “in their best interest” without that community’s input. I read through PB’s description of how the process works in the UU and how a blanket decision was forced on the entire community and I was struck by it. It sounds exactly like the way most Catholic parishes (and parishioners) are treated – at least in the Boston area. I have to admit, I felt a certain sense of sadness at that point. Granted I have very little education on UUism in general, but I had always heard and felt that the UU prides itself as being the opposite of the strict structure and does not perpetuate the sense of a central body imposing its will on its members that most large organized religions generally entail. And the mentality of “because I said so” and “we know what’s best for the people, we don’t need to ask them” was not part of its principles. I do look at the UU with less idealism (and more education) since I started reading this blog. Please don’t get me wrong, I think this is a very healthy thing as I do firmly believe there is a key difference between blind faith and true faith. (i.e. purposeful ignorance is NOT faith) However, I was still very saddened to see some of those same tactics that turn me off to the Catholic Church being used in the UU community.
   I do hope your community can rally and actually have influence over the decision makers to bring the UU community what it wants and needs to make it meaningful to the individuals. It’s still sad that money might be the only way to bring about discussion. I’m still holding out hope that in the UU, the voice of the people means something and can help make more immediate changes. From what I have seen, many Catholics seem to drift away rather than making a stand – apathy over anger and indignation – because no one feels their voice has any meaning, it’s too much trouble, things won’t change for a hundred years (literally!) even if they do change, etc, etc. I admit, I include myself in the apathy group for those reasons as well as some others. I would hate to see this kind of apathy start to propagate itself through the UU community as I have always felt the UU offered a very important alternative to the Catholic Church.

   [What an interesting perspective, and thank you for it, Jennifer. I think that many people come to UUism from orthodox traditions with high idealism that "the voice of the people" will truly matter, and go away disgusted and angry when they feel that the UUA leadership consistently makes bold political statements on their behalf with which they vehemently disagree, or when a congregational board or minister acts in a way that seems too authoritarian for their tastes. You are right to see that congregational polity is no more perfect than any other kind of polity. Some folks believe that when our General Assembly delegates agree, for instance, to vote support for reproductive freedoms for women, that means that we are allowed to say that "Unitarian Universalists are Pro-Choice!" It does not mean that. It means that I, a minister, am able to testify before the Maryland legislature and say that I represent a tradition whose General Assembly affirmed in such-and-such years to support a woman's right to be free of government interference in her personal reproductive choices. The difference is subtle, and a lot of us don't get it.

   When our GA delegates vote on something, it does not, in my opinion, really give us permission to therefore say that "UUs Stand For This Or That." It gives us permission to do public witness around an issue but never to forget that we do not speak for every congregation or individual, and should avoid making statements that imply that. There is a delicate balance there, and one we distort when we fail to remember that many congregations "vote" for non-agreement with the UUA's leadership style by their absence at GA and their failure to send fair share dues to the Association when they can well afford to.

   Still, our congregational polity means that we can call our own ministers, dismiss them when they prove unsatisfactory, create liturgies and worship materials that minister to our people without going through any permission-giving process (sometimes not such a good thing, in my opinion!), establish our own requirements for membership from church to church, manage our own finances, and discern and vote r on all matters of importance as a congregation. It's not a perfect polity but I deeply love and respect it, and will never tire of the beautiful tension between various interpretations of what congregational polity really means. - PB]

   Comment by Jennifer Redding — April 25, 2008 #

5. CC, I could be wrong, but I don’t think you’re representative of the folks Patrick has in mind. While many UUs may have some level of sympathy with one or more of the sentiments he described, he’s talking about people who have been very involved in actively trying to change the culture and operation of the UUA and GA. Occasional sassy blog remarks are probably not the level of involvement he’s concerned with, even if delivered by a maestra of snark.

   Comment by Jeff W. — April 25, 2008 #

6. I have not been particularly troubled by the IA issue, because too often it seems to me that IA’s crave official Beacon Street recognition as a mark that they are a “real” UU organization. What I have begun to see as problematic is the way the IA’s have been exiled from future GA formats. Although the UUA says it is about providing services to member congregations, I have often found that the various IA’s provide more services than the UUA does. Their various publications, conferences, and workshops are readilly used at the grass-roots by people in our congregations. I find many official UUA conferences to be so expensive they are hard to access, and many workshops contrived to fit a top-down methodology I would dub “Beacon knows best”.

   I think it is clear that the IA policy needs to be re-examined to strike a healthier balance where the UUA is not seen as a seal of approval for various IA’s; but where the IA’s can still use GA as a networking venue for the numerous services to congregants and congregations.

   Comment by Derek — April 25, 2008 #

7. In response to Jeff’s challenge to name-names, I offer one.

   The intellectual mother of the Congregational Polity fundamentalism movement is a respected and beloved—as well as tireless—minister and scholar, Alice Blair Wesley. The manifesto of the movement was her 2000-200 Mimms Lectures, which summarized decades of thinking, writing, and genteel agitating. That is available in book form as OUR COVENANT—THE LAY AND LIBERAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH: THE SPIRIT AND PROMICE OF THE COVENANT, published by Meadville/Lombard. I believe it is still available at the UUA Bookstore or any of the on-line book sellers.

   Many of Alice’s criticisms, rooted in a deep theological and historical understanding of covenantal relationships among the Puritans and their Unitarian descendents resonated with long time critics of UUA governance and—surprisingly—to some insiders within that governance structure. She drew almost exclusively on the polity arising from the New England Standing Order and chose to ignore the separate—and quite different polity and governance traditions—of the Universalists.

   Certainly re-focusing the UUA on congregational services and devolving greater governance authority to autonomous congregations makes some sense and many reforms in that direction may well be worthwhile.

   The problem is that in order to succeed in their governance goals, these folks felt the need to sweep away all non-congregational organs which might function in opposition to their plans. They can argue that the disaffiliated groups are still free to associate and pursue their goals, but by cutting off access to the General Assembly, discounted advertising in UUWORLD, and even simple linkage through the web site they know that many of these groups will whither and die. Those that don’t will loose easy access to congregations and will become closed clubs.

   Perhaps this would make sense if we could return to the mid-19th Century model of dual authority—the UUA becoming what its name implies simply an association of Congregations (akin to Henry Whitney Bellow’s National Conference of Unitarian) with and a new parallel organization of individuals and interest organizations (like the original, pre-Eliot American Unitarian Association) which could represent the Unitarian Universalist movement broadly. But the obstacles to setting up a new and effective parallel organization from scratch are now virtually insurmountable.

   The excess of this movement have now driven me to become the dirtiest word in the Congregational Polity fundamentalist lexicon—a “denominationalist.” Because what they are creating is an absurd world where there are no Unitarian Universalists, only book signed members autonomous congregations. When ever any one ceases for any reason, even temporarily, to be a member of a congregation they are to have no access to the UUA and its services and the UUA is to have no interest in them. Some way to build religious identity.

   In the early post-Revolutionary era people thought of themselves as citizens Massachusetts, Virginia, or Rhode Island and not as Americans. That thinking was enshrouded in the Articles of Confederation. That didn’t work for building a nation. Neither will pure and simple congregationalism build Unitarian Universalism.

   Comment by Patrick Murfin — April 25, 2008 #

8. (((but by cutting off access to the General Assembly, discounted advertising in UUWORLD, and even simple linkage through the web site they know that many of these groups will whither and die.)))

   If all that stands between a group and death is these few UUA-dependent factors, then that pretty much speaks for itself about how many people that group is actually serving and how much those people care.

   And the “Closed club” argument seems similarly unimpressive in a world with google, email and tons of other ways of finding groups and keeping groups connected inexpensively and without the UUA.

   I mean, honestly, if you needed the contact information for the UU Christian group, would you hunt for an official UU directory or go to UUA.org? If I were you, I’d just google “UU Christian” and go from there. UUCF gomes up first.

   (((When ever any one ceases for any reason, even temporarily, to be a member of a congregation they are to have no access to the UUA and its services and the UUA is to have no interest in them. Some way to build religious identity. )))

   Depending upon how you look at it, this argument is either a total straw man or a problem that exists today and that the increasing denominalization of the UUA has done nothing to solve.

   Either way, I’m not seeing how it is the congregationalists’ fault, and I’m not seeing how putting greater attention into helping congregations isn’t going to improve things if there are so many people feeling disaffected from our congregations.

   CC
   who doesn’t hate Boston, but doesn’t think it is reasonable to equate critcism of those in power in an institution as “hatred.” She’s critical of the Bush administration, but she doens’t “hate America” either.

   Comment by Chalicechick — April 25, 2008 #

9. “When ever any one ceases for any reason, even temporarily, to be a member of a congregation they are to have no access to the UUA and its services and the UUA is to have no interest in them.”

   In this statement, does “congregation” refer to a brick-and-mortar type of church?

   If so, so much for members of the Church of the Larger Fellowship.

   :eyeroll:

   Comment by Tracie the Red — April 25, 2008 #

10. Three observations: First, UU World was able to clarify that the board didn’t intend to impose steeper advertising rates on UU organizations that didn’t qualify for independent affiliate status. (The board was not focused on at what the change in status would mean for the groups.) So the magazine created a new, deeply discounted advertising rate for any member-supported nonprofit UU organization. That rate applies to many former independent affiliates, and to many other UU organizations that had not had (or sought) independent affiliate status.

    The second observation is that the board is working with a somewhat novel interpretation of the bylaw about independent affiliates. The bylaw says, in part:

    The Board of Trustees may admit to affiliated status those independently constituted and operated organizations whose purposes and intentions it finds to be in sympathy with the principles of the Association, and may terminate such status upon finding that the organization no longer meets the foregoing qualifications or is not in compliance with the rules relating to such organizations.

    I have heard some trustees say that this bylaw describes organizations seeking affiliation with the board, not with the Association. In theory, the General Assembly could assert another interpretation.

    Finally, it has seemed to me that the changes affecting independent affiliates came entirely (or almost entirely) from the trustees themselves, and not from the administration or staff. I can understand lashing out at the administration — how would one punish the board? — but the decision didn’t come from “Boston.”

    Comment by Philocrites — April 25, 2008 #

11. I don’t know about that statement, Tracie, but CLF is considered a congregation according to the UUA.

    Comment by h sofia — April 25, 2008 #

12. Supporting congregations rather than leading them around by the nose would not necessarily be a bad thing — if there were any serious determination to do so, that is. (I’ve been nattering into the cyber-ether about redefining the mission of the UUAWO along those lines for years.)

    Doing congregationalism is one thing. Yet ripping down existing institutions, however flawed they may be by some measures, without replacing them with anything more functional or constructive than they were, is quite another. That’s not polity, it’s nihilism.

    How is what’s going on in the UUA politically any different than what’s going on in Iraq?

    Comment by fausto — April 25, 2008 #

13. Fausto, a rather substantial difference in the amount of violence comes to mind.

    Comment by Philocrites — April 25, 2008 #

14. LOL. You are a master of understatement, Philo.

    CC
    who doesn’t honestly think that even the most ardent congregationalist plans to ditch the CLF

    Comment by Chalicechick — April 25, 2008 #

15. *sniff* Doesn’t anyone want to call me a master of hyperbole?

    Comment by fausto — April 25, 2008 #

16. In the interest of full disclosure, I will say that the nefarious Alice Blair Wesley is my beloved mentor and friend, and that I think there are many ways to interpret her “congregational polity fundamentalism.”

    I’ve been part of the CPF movement myself (aka “Free Church Tradition Freak”), but still see the eradication of the IAs as a weakening of the bonds between us, not a strengthening of congregational polity. I appreciate Patrick’s detailed analysis, but the piece you may not be seeing, Patrick, is that those of us who have tended to be critical of 25 Beacon Street are deeply devoted to the sense of fellowship and covenant BETWEEN congregations — which is an important aspect of our respect for congregational autonomy.

    I hope Alice will see this post and weigh in. Fausto, here it is just for you (in deep, booming tones), “My friend, you are a MASTER OF HYPERBOLE!”

    Comment by PeaceBang — April 25, 2008 #

17. *blush* Aw shucks, it was nothin’, really.

    Comment by fausto — April 25, 2008 #

18. Peacebang—

    I deeply respect Alice Blair Wesley and would never call her “nefarious.” She has always openly and forthrightly advanced her arguments and cause—a trait I admire. We have had many enlightening exchanges in various forums over the years and she has taken me to the woodshed on more than one occasion. That’s alright, too. Most of the time I deserved it. But we have very different visions of how best to advance the Unitarian Universalism we both love.

    [Patrick, I should have put "nefarious" in quotation marks, because I was kidding. Alice has been called worse over the years and I didn't get any sense of hostility from your accurate description of her personal crusade. I can only imagine that the two of you have had wonderful rip-snorters and that she has appreciated your knowledge of our polity and commitment to our tradition as much as you appreciate hers. I've been taken to the woodshed by ABW, too, and have been all the better for it. When she came to spend a few days with me once, I was not surprised that my cat made herself a regular guest at the dinner table, sitting on a dining room chair and listening to Alice's conversation with great feline attentiveness. She is a parsonage cat and knows a great ancestor spirit-in-the-making when she sees one. - PB]

    Comment by Patrick Murfin — April 25, 2008 #

19. This is a very interesting conversation in light of some recent district activities. I shared concern about changing relationship with the IA’s at a district board retreat last summer and was “educated” by someone closer to the UUA board and GA structure that the intent was to make “GA better”, not to annoy the IA’s. Having been a grateful recipient of several IA’s in my role as RE teacher, parent of Scouts, and spouse of a political conservative, those IA forums and sources of info (Christian, Buddhist, Scout, Conservative) were very helpful over the years, especially when it felt very hostile in my local congregation to talk about my beliefs and issues. I’m glad to hear tha folks think this decision won’t impact the IA’s- to me they are a rich resource, especially when the atmosphere doesn’t feel very safe to share your pov (one reason folks don’t stay affiliated).

    Related to this issue of congregational polity (who has a vote, who has power) was a discussion at a recent district annual meeting. A person belonging to a nonUU affiliated congregation was nominated to the Board of Trustees of the District!!! After questioning, we were “reassured” that the person will join the CLF so as to be “affiliated”. Some of us were concerned that a new Trustee would be given rights to decide spending, priorities, and policy over money which the CONGREGATIONS, not CLF, give to the district. To me it seems directly in conflict with the way the UUA Bd of Trustees is moving. I do believe that CLF members and “non-congregatonally affiliated” members should be able to call themselves UU, attend GA and other training, conferences, programs, etc. But the power over spending needs to stay with those who are contributing the funds- the congregations and other donating bodies. How does the CLF vote at GA? Do they have a seat on the UUA Board?

    [Very good questions, Cincimom. I hope someone can answer them. - PB]

    Comment by Cincimom — April 25, 2008 #

20. Peacebang et al., I am appreciating this conversation. The question continues to be in my simple mind, anyway, who does the UUAofC serve? What is its ministry? Is it to serve independent affiliates, albeit valuable entities giving flesh to our living traditions and sources? Or is it to serve congregations? Or is there some other ministry still to be discerned and clarified?

    It has been stated in this discussion that decisions were made that the mission / ministry was to serve congregations and therefore the IAs were for lack of a better word, severed from the main body.

    On a smaller scale, I have seen congregations have their own affiliated organizations and have watched these organizations wreck havoc on a congregation’s integrity. The reason for the havoc having more to do with the dysfunction of the congregation than with the affiliate but the affiliate compounded and expanded the dysfunction in the congregation. What developed in these congregations were a series of factions who acted in divisive ways against each other and against the congregation. Because of these experiences, I personally will fight against an independent affiliate to form along side a congregation, it needs to be a recognized ministry of the congregation not a separate entity. People who join the group are to be invited to become members of the congregation/community and not just this group. People who join need to see their ministry as being part of the larger ministry of the congregational whole.

    So back to the larger scale, I think the answer the UUAofC should have sought was how to enable these organizations to be more fully integrated into the ministry of our association of congregations.

    I don’t know how one does this on such a national scale. And I don’t know how one does this when there appears to be an inequity of power bases.

    Comment by Fred — April 26, 2008 #

21. Cincimom:
    I’m no expert on CLF, but as far as I understand, The Church of the Larger Fellowship is a member congregation of the UUA. Therefore, members of CLF are affiliated with a congregation. CLF is represented at GA by delegates. As for representation on the Board, the Board trustees do not serve as reps of their respective congregations; there are district trustees and some trustees at large (plus officers). But Rev. Bill Sinkford is on the Board, and he is a member of the Church of the Larger Fellowship. There are also at least two other members of the Church of the Younger Fellowship (which is part of CLF) represented on the Board as trustees-at-large.

    I don’t know if CLF falls under any district. On the UUA website, it is listed as being under a “miscellaneous” district.

    Comment by h sofia — April 26, 2008 #

22. <>

    Aren’t district Broads (like the UUA Boards) elected? Or is this a case of no one else wants to be nominated?

    My local UU is non-affiliated (as a emerging congregation), maybe we should make it easier to affiliate? Although I have been a CLF member for 30 years or so….

    Comment by Steven R — April 26, 2008 #

23. For me it’s not just the IA’s. It’s the IA’s plus the defunding of seminaries plus the defunding of YRUU. It’s a pattern of taking away status and money from anyone who doesn’t “toe the line” and do what this administration wants them to do. And they don’t even feel the need to be subtle. It’s a power grab, and what makes it most disgusting is it’s a power grab in the NAME of the CONGREGATIONS. Sometimes I wonder if I’m the only one who sees it.

    Interestingly, I’ve been a big institutionalist and I get really angry when people bash “25″ for no reason. But frankly, they’ve given us reason to be angry and to call out for change.

    Rev. Sean

    Comment by revsean — April 26, 2008 #

24. CLF is one of the largest churches in the UUA and therefore has a large number of delegates at GA. There were 22 delegates last year. CLF delegates are asked to “vote their conscience,” attend the annual meeting and annual worship service at GA, and work several hours in the CLF booth.

    My partner and I have been CLF delegates for the past two GAs, but are skipping Ft. Lauderdale. Not for any political or idealogical reasons, but simply because Florida in June is a very unappealing place to drive our RV home for a visit.

    In a way, CLF delegates are the ultimate “at large” voters at GA. They are quite geographically, economically, and spiritually diverse. Most of us have never met each other, hear only a handful of sermons per year, and gather most of our UU information via reading.

    I don’t know much about the CLF and the UUA board.

    Comment by Louise — April 26, 2008 #

25. The CLF has no special status with the UUA board.

    Comment by Philocrites — April 26, 2008 #

26. I don’t see many comments about PeaceBang’s lead-in, which was the tremendous pressure put on us clergy last year to hold an “Association Sunday,” and help raise funds for the UUA’s “Now Is the Time” campaign.

    Although it’s slightly off-topic, I’d like to weigh in as a minister who *did* designate the UUA as the recipient of our regular “half basket” giveaway (in October), but who bitterly resented the UUA’s process & tone during its campaign, for the following reasons:

    1. It’s not an exaggeration to say that I felt downright harassed by the UUA, and in particular by Stephan Papa’s team (whom I’ve dubbed the “Papa Posse”). They literally chased me down the corridors of Portland’s convention center, left many high-pressure voicemails for me at the office, and otherwise insinuated the primacy of their project into the fabric of my congregation. I don’t think my experience was unique; many of us were virtually strong-armed into either holding an Association Sunday, or defending our (unpopular) decision not to.

    2. UUA material crowed about the need for money for “growth” and “advertising.” Like PeaceBang, I’m not thrilled with the content of our TIME magazine ads, but I’m satisfied enough with the sheer publicity. When I received detailed information about the funds raised, however, only in the small print was it mentioned that 25% of those monies would be given to congregations with ministers of color. Ministers of color? FINE. Admirable, even, for an Association with a commitment to anti-racism & multiculturalism. But it’s the *process*, people! Don’t tell me that 25% of a stated goal of one million dollars (!) falls under the category of “publicity.” I still feel misled by the UUA’s lack of transparency around the use of those funds.

    3. Call me a fool, but I honestly thought that Association Sunday was a one-time deal. Perhaps I just wasn’t paying attention. Now that I understand that the UUA expects this to be an annual event, I just feel weary. The only silver lining in this gray cloud of disappointment is that my District has chosen to distribute its “Now Is the Time” payout back to us, the congregations, in the form of grants.

    Thanks to all in the PeaceBang community for your thought-provoking comments, and all that I learn from you.

    Comment by Rev E — April 26, 2008 #

27. Well, I agree with PB about the myriad “special Sundays” — not generally in keeping with what we are trying to do in worship.

    I like the idea of decreasing the hold the IA’s have had on GA —- it seemed odd that tiny groups with only a few members in many cases have more access to workshop spaces than congregations do. I am not sure that there wouldn’t be a more middle of the road solution, but it had gotten to the point that there were too high a percentage of spaces devoted to small constituencies whose purpose was only marginal to the concerns of the general GA population and our congregations.

    Comment by KJR — April 26, 2008 #

28. I added some dissection of the specific UUA Bylaws and Rules pertaining to independent affiliates to Transient and Permanent. Hopefully it will prove relevant to this discussion.

    Comment by Jeff — April 28, 2008 #

29. Here I am — the original and perhaps most publicaly strident of the “radical congregationalism” crowd being blamed for this debacle.

    It’s a shoe that fits in some places and not in others. Most importantly, I got hillaried (rhymes w pillaried, but means “intentionally misinterpreted to others”) by centralizers who wanted to avoid examining the mid-level institutions of the Cambridge Platform. Yes indeed, the CP called for direct, sustained and multifaceted relationships of congregational leaders within the lives of each others’ congregations, fostered by shared theologies and regular events.

    The crown of these events was “the council,” a gathering of delegates of all the neighboring congregations (ministers and leading laypeople, including the long-lost folk called “deacons”) for a day or more of careful examination of something upsetting the inviting congregation. It usually involved their minister or ministerial transition. It ended with a vote for or against said minister’s stay with the congregation (usually), logically justified by the clear understanding — let me underscore this — that part of every minister’s call was to visit with, preach to, and keep knowledge of the congregations in local association with his own.

    This, of course, competes with Sam Eliot’s model of the District Executive with orders from Boston on key items, and the UUMA’s model of its own Good Offices leaders.

    Wisdom would have called not for looking away from these ancient words, but from asking how this new century could cobble together a model that would include the best of the old and the best of the new.

    My own proposed next step is simply that all UUA trustees must pay a formal, warranted visit to all the congregations (or clusters) in their purview, for purposes of accountable conversation about their work.

    This could be a good year for that idea…

    Comment by Elz — April 28, 2008 #

30. I want to add a nuance: I think there was a certain pathology involved in YRUU and its approach to youth ministry and faith formation that needed to be corrected in any event, so I’m not as disturbed by what’s going on there as I am by the IA kerfuffle. However, I do see a common thread across both issues, as well as the “Now Every Year is the Time” campaign, the overall and seemingly planned effect of which is to strengthen denominational control, weaken denominational accountability, and eliminate competing denominational constituencies, without (thus far, anyway) providing any effective substitute for the ministries and services that are being adversely affected.

    Comment by fausto — April 30, 2008 #

31. I just recently started attending a UU church which I am greatly enjoying, and while I like them, I find the more I read about the policies of the UUA the more I dislike them. I don’t know the whole story, rationale or internal politics behind the de-funding/disbanding the IAs and YRUU/CUUYAN. Are these actions truly representative of the will of most UUs or more so of certain interests?

    As a Polytheist in a denomination that is mostly monotheist or atheist, I can’t help feeling a bit shut out by CUUPS losing it’s status. I often am one of the few people to identify with a tradition beyond UUism, and it seems that by losing a way of organizing ourselves, Pagans as well as Buddhists, Christians etc. may start to feel kind of lost in the breadth of UUism.

    Comment by Mariah/Caelesti — May 8, 2008 #

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.