http://www.uua.org/documents/finance/071231_gif_summary.pdf

Sorry, don’t want this to take away from an otherwise thoughtful post.

1. Everything that is wrong with UUism has its roots at “25.” Not!!! Come on, people, that’s what most of this sounds like!!
2. We can speak as people of faith openly and authoritatively on sex in a way that can make many people blush with shame, but God forbid we talk about money and financial stewardship (or God for that matter) as also important to the religious life. Why is that?
3. For those uninspired or in disagreement with the campaign’s goals, I can’t say anything in so far as what you say is personal opinion. But let’s be clear that this campaign’s goals did not arise out of whole cloth or entirely out of Sinkford’s mind. The UUA spent over two years meeting with almost every UU group imaginable (before the affiliate flap)in an effort to try to find out what UUs outside of “25″ considered pressing. This data helped to narrow the possible issues which lead to surveys to be answered by individuals. As a result, the UUA sent questionnaires to individual UUs and had computer kiosks open to all available at GA in Fort Worth through which to take the survey and tell staff and board what they considered most pressing for the UUA. In the end, as I understand it, more individuals and groups had the chance to weigh in with opinions, hopes and desires for UUism and the UUA than in any other time in the history of the combined traditions. This is all to say that the campaign’s goals were not some sort of misguided fantasy of the UUA staff and board. Did each (staff and board) have a role in interpreting the data and setting the goals? Sure. Was that interpretation perfect? Probably not, but every human endeavor is flawed.

Your comments about the difficulty of fundraising under any circumstances are well taken. However, I think what has made “Now is the Time” a flashpoint is that the otherwise predictable money sensitivities are compounded by parallel concerns over power and trust, as PeaceBang’s earlier thread suggests. Nerves are already raw over the IA and YRUU flaps, and additional moves by “25″ that further concentrate decision making in an unaccountable denominational oligarchy seem directly opposed to the stated denominational policy of building a stronger congregationalism. The apparent contradiction between word and deed leave an impression of insincerity, ineptitude, or both. The impression may not be justified, but it is nevertheless reinforced by the fact that nothing seems to be being done to dispel it.

No doubt the UUA made lots of mistakes during this campaign — I’d start with the fact that if you want to get people under the age of forty into our churches, you don’t advertise in dead tree publications. But the UUA’s mistakes don’t deserve the excoriation that’s going on here. So I have been asking myself what’s going on…

Well, if you’ve ever been a part of a church that has a large endowment, all the above discussion sounds very familiar. In churches with large endowments, giving is frequently half that of similar churches in the same area — whenever someone raises the prospect of a face-to-face canvass, the anxiety level goes up perceptibly — and when you do have a successful canvass one year, and say you’re going to have another canvass next year, there will be substantial resistance. Now the UUA doesn’t have an endowment, but the Veatch Fund consistently bails us out, year after year, acting just like an endowment.

Which leads me to say that we in the UUA need to talk openly and non-confrontationally about money. If you people don’t like Association Sunday, instead of being so doggone destructive, why not come up with some constructive ideas, for pity’s sake?

Oops. There, I’ve gone and done it again. Once again I’m the turd in the punch bowl.

The more important point, however, is that what we see is a lot of effort being expended on fundraising, but without nearly as much effort going toward explaining to prospective donors precisely what the campaign entails, what their money will buy, or what it has bought to date. Both problems arise, it seems to me, from a combination of inadequate planning and poor communication. It’s difficult to raise money for a campaign whose purpose seems to be primarily communication if you can’t even communicate effectively with your pool of prospective donors.

The impression it leaves is something like this:

UUA: “Dad, it’s Saturday night. I need money.”

UUs: “Really? What are you going to do with it?”

UUA: “Oh, I dunno. Good stuff.”

UUs: “You going to spend it all on beer again?”

UUA: “Um…”

UUs: “You going to ask me for the car keys next?”

UUA: “Um…”

UUs: “Tell you what. You tell me how you spent that money I gave you last weekend. Then you tell me how much you need tonight and what you’re going to do with it. And oh, by the way, the lawn needs mowing.”

UUA: “Um…”

As someone deeply committed to supporting the institutions of our faith, I completely agree that making this an annual thing was a mistake. I, for one, managed to get the congregation I serve to share our plate in January with the campaign–and I don’t want to do that again. There are much more compelling justice causes out there that I’d rather see us be generous towards.

I think that rather than a once-a-year-for-five-years initative, they might launch a once-every-five-years one. I could stomach such a thing that often.

in peace,
Michael

I can see why the initiative you are talking about is a different kettle of fish. I just get really annoyed with people who are happy to use the services of the church, but then complain about being reminded that supporting the church takes dollars.

Pax,
Doxy