The Rev. Barbara Child
The Rev. Cynthia Cain, Unitarian Universalist Church of Lexington, KY
The Rev. Dr. Nana' Kratochvil, Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Central Michigan, Mt. Pleasant, MI
The Rev. Andrew L. Weber, YRUU Advisor, First Unitarian Universalist Congregation, Ann Arbor, MI
The Rev. Kimi Riegel, Northwest Unitarian Universalist Church, Southfield, MI
The Rev. Bruce Russell-Jayne
The Rev. Mary Ann Macklin, Unitarian Universalist Church of Bloomington, IN

For more information,

         I was deeply disturbed when Caylee Anthony went missing and mourned her death.  I know why, too.  She was of a similar age to my own daughter, and at least one person told me that Caylee reminded this person of my own daughter.  Caylee's big brown eyes, in particular, do have a resemblance.
         I cried when I read about Christina Taylor Green, who was 9 years old when she died in the shootings in Tucson.  She, too, reminded me of my daughter, a precocious, politically-involved, brown-haired, brown-eyed girl. 
         I know why I mourned these little girls who, for a moment, caught our nation's attention.  They were innocent, beautiful, and gone too soon.  And they were in the media spotlight -- beautiful little girls -- white little girls.  Their deaths were horrible, outrageous, and made us sad and also furious.
         Too often the children whose deaths we mourn as a society are like Caylee and Christina Taylor -- the white little girls.  Too seldom do we, as a society or as individuals unconnected to the family mourn young black children killed.
         This point about who captures our national attention and who we mourn and how there really is racism involved in this was brought home to me this week from an unlikely source -- a fictional one.  Like many others, I've read The Hunger Games and went to see the movie last week.  The character of Rue had a particularly tragic death in the book.  It's particularly tragic because she becomes a person who is important to the heroine, Katniss, and who Katniss particularly mourns, because she reminds her of her own little sister, Primrose.  Suzanne Collins, the author, describes Rue saying, "She has dark brown skin and eyes, but other than that's she's very like Prim in size and demeanor."  I know why I mourned Rue.  I had little sisters, too.  Rue was beautiful, innocent, and young.  Her character as portrayed in the movie also reminded me of my sisters and daughter. 
          But for some, the fact that they identified with Rue and mourned her death means that she can't be black -- even though the text says she is and the author has directly stated that she is African-American, too.  There are a number of twitter users who have posted about The Hunger Games following the movie saying thing such as, "why does rue have to be black not gonna lie kinda ruined the movie" (prompting, thankfully, spoofs such as "why does Frederick Douglass have to be black not gonna lie kinda ruined abolition"), "call me racist but when I found out rue was black her death wasn't as sad" (Yes, you're a racist), and "Rue looks nothing like I imagined her.  Isn't she supposed to be a pale redhead (or was that just in MY head?)?  Why is she black?" (Yes, it was just in YOUR head.)  For more, see what I think is the original Jezebel story here, more Jezebel commentary here, and a bunch of racist tweets here.
         Yes, too often the children whose deaths we mourn as a society are the white little girls, and too seldom do we mourn young black children killed.  That's why these people struggle with Rue being black--they mourned her, not realizing her race, and assumed her, therefore, to be white, despite textual evidence.  If you care, if she's important, she must be white.  We're used to not caring in our society about young black children who are killed.  And even more so those who are boys, boys killed too soon like Trayvon Martin.  Trayvon was innocent, beautiful, precocious, and gone too soon, too. His death was wrong, horrible, outrageous.  And remarkably, it, too, caught media attention and made us sad and furious.
         The fact that we are, really, conditioned through our media and our culture to be more sympathetically inclined towards dead white children and to find their deaths sadder and more outrageously wrong makes it even more clear how very, very wrong Trayvon's death was.  The fact that we are paying attention to it not because of his race but despite of his race shows how very, very horrible and wrong it was.  If you've listened to the 911 calls and heard him crying for help and heard the level of distress of the callers calling 911 you know it was brutal.  A beautiful, promising young man carrying iced tea, Skittles, and a cell phone, gunned down for the crime of walking while black and wearing a hoodie -- of course we are, and should be, outraged, sad, angry, furious, and tearful.  And there can be no doubt that if this was a young white boy, a high school football player, walking home from a store who was shot by a black man who happened to think he was up to no good for walking home that night, that the shooter would be behind bars awaiting trial, a trial at which he would not be treated kindly by the justice system.
         President Obama has said that the nation needs "soul-searching" in response to Trayvon's death.  In response, people are saying things such as "If Trayvon’s mother were white, would Obama give her a call?" implying that it is the president, not the shooter, who is the racist.  Of course, for Christina Taylor Green, Obama did speak at her funeral.  But facts never get in the way of racist attacks on the president.
         We do need a national soul-searching in response to Trayvon.  And especially if his death doesn't prompt sadness and outrage, we do need soul-searching.

So if living as if there is no God doesn't mean living immorally, what does it mean? 

• Without threat of eternal damnation, it means that we must take seriously the consequences of negative behaviors during our time on earth.
• Without threat of eternal rewards, it means we must live life to the fullest, appreciating the beauty, love, and kindness that we experience now, and share it with others.
• Without a God to make the rules, it means we must pay attention to our rules, create our own moral codes as individuals and a society and justify our behaviors as moral to the larger community. 
• With this as the only world we will know, it means that we must take care of it, and make ensure that our planet is livable for generations to come.
• Without a God's love and support, it means we must love and support one another.
• Without a God to blame for negative things happening, it means we must work to make a world where people are cared for in the best way possible.
• Without a God to thank for our rewards, it means we must acknowledge a randomness to life.  Some people get things easier than others.  And when we do, it's our moral responsibility to help those less fortunate.
• A truly "Practical Atheist" would be someone who believes in caring for the planet, living justly, caring for fellow humans and for animals.  

So I ask my Christian colleagues, when you hear the term "Practical Atheist" bandied about as synonymous for immoral behavior, challenge that term.  Atheists gave us the Eight-Fold Path.  Atheists gave us the Humanist Manifesto.  Atheists give us statements like this one from the American Ethical Union: "Dedicated to cultivating moral development in personal life and moral reform in society, Ethical Culture seeks to nurture relationships in which we act so as to elicit the best in others and thereby in ourselves, to provide inspiration and guidance for moral living, and to transform the way humanity views the meaning of life."

What does it mean to live as if there is no God?  It means to be responsible for one's own morality; it does not mean to live immorally.  So let's make a deal, Christians.  If people don't live up to your idea of Christianity and you don't call them "Practical Atheists," then when people don't live up to my idea of Atheism I won't call them "Practical Christians."  A better term for Christians who act immorally would be Hypocritical Christians rather than Practical Atheists.  If a Christians are not living up to your understanding of your faith, Christians, call them out on it, but don't call them Atheists.  We don't claim them; they're all yours.

A Christian colleague ran across the term "Practical Atheist" recently and brought it to a group I'm in for definition and discussion.  I wasn't familiar with it, and as probably the only thing close to an Atheist in the group (for the record, I call myself an Agnostic), offered up that it might be about a distinction between declared Atheists and default atheists (those who have not made a sort of declaration of atheism, but have no belief in God).  Other Christian colleagues in the group went with a definition of those people who might profess a belief in Christ, but live a Godless lifestyle.  Turns out, it seems they were right according to some definitions.  And that makes sense, because it's not a term that would make sense within the Atheist community, but makes sense in the Christian community.  And no term is likelier to drive Atheists hopping mad, now that I understand it better.

So here's the Wikipedia definition, which would be closer to my definition: "In practical or pragmatic atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine. The existence of gods is not rejected, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this view."

However, I found this definition which matches my Christian colleagues' definition exactly on About.com:  "This is a category used by some religious theists to describe all those theists who technically believe in a god, but who behave immorally. The assumption is that moral behavior follows automatically from genuine theism, thus immoral behavior is a consequence of not genuinely believing. Theists who behave immorally must really be atheists, regardless of what they believe. The term 'practical atheist' is thus a smear against atheists generally."

The other top results of my Google search show that this term is generally being used in the About.com way, rather than the Wikipedia way.  For example, LifeChurch.TV says, "Practical Atheist -- You say you believe in God. Do you really? Do you live your life as if God is in the room, or do you assume He’s not paying attention? You call yourself a Christian. Are you who you say you are?" There's a video there that I chose not to watch.  If you watch it, let me know how awful it is.  Or take this article in the Christian Post as an example, about the guy behind the LifeChurch.TV video:  "S.C. Pastor Exposes 'Practical Atheists' among Christians."  It says, "Practical atheist, or Christian atheist, is defined as someone who believes in God but lives as if He doesn't exist."

The use of the term "Practical Atheist" in this way assumes morality is from God, and so those who are living amorally are atheistic, at least in practice, even if not in belief.  And it's a slam on Atheists.  But, as we've seen, people generally believe that Atheists don't have morals, because Atheists don't believe in God. 

For the record, then: living as if there is no God does NOT mean living immorally.  More on that in my next post.

The UUA President, the Rev. Peter Morales published a working paper titled "Congregations and Beyond" last week.  It's available in its entirety here.  In it he says, "I am realizing in a profound way that congregations cannot be the only way we
 connect with people." and "We have long defined ourselves as an association of congregations. We need to think
 of ourselves as a religious movement." 

The Rev. Morales says, "
Congregations as local parishes arose in a different era. They arose in a time of limited
 mobility and communication. Most members lived within a couple of miles of their
 church."  This is something that I've been thinking about recently, as well.  The time that the church is where you go to in order to hear the latest ideas or even the latest gossip is a time that's behind us.  The church is no longer the central, or even a central, hub for how people get and exchange information and ideas.  There are still things that churches do better than other institutions, but those things are fewer and far between.  We're no longer the best source of therapy--the psychological profession, as it emerged, has taken over that role.  We're no longer where you might hear the best, most engaging lectures--you tube gives you access to the best in the world, and it's a rare church with a minister of that level of academic excellence.  We're no longer the place where you hear first what is going on in your community -- our newspapers and even our friendships are available 24/7 on the computer.  We are, still, the best form for worship, I think, although much of that is available in electronic form, as well, except for the communal aspect.  We do retain the role of being one primary way that brings together groups of people for personal connection -- the social role of face-to-face regular gathering is filled less and less by other groups in this society, while we're still going strong.  But the point is, congregations are less needed in many people's minds, and, accordingly, we're not growing.

The two-part strategy the Rev. Morales outlines is:

1. Congregations remain the base

   
2. Focus energy on creating a movement beyond the congregation

Honestly, it looks pretty much like a one-part strategy to me, as part 1 is basically just reassuring us that this congregational thing that we're already doing will still be important.  So what does part 2 entail?  Looks like his answer is social media, re-engaging the identity organizations formerly known as "affiliates," small groups of other undefined sorts, and social action. 

It is, well, vague.  And not clear exactly what it would entail that's not being done currently. 

But the question that he points to, well, that's intriguing.  Morales points out the there are, as we've known, bunches of people who identify as UU and who don't attend UU churches.  And there are bunches of people who were raised UU who don't attend UU churches.  Some of them are fairly well connected to UUism in other ways -- he points to the fact that a significant number of people who attend SUUSI don't attend any UU congregation.

I'm sure any parish minister can name dozens of potential, former, or raised-UUs in that minister's geographic area who are not church members.  And, like Morales who says we need "A great deal more research about those who identify as UUs but are not members of
 a congregation," most of us don't know why these UU-types are not UU-affiliated in our towns. 

But what I think is new about "Congregations and Beyond" is that Peter Morales is not suggesting we find out why they're not in churches, but, rather, find out what they are interested in doing that would connect them to our movement in other ways.  Some people will never be church-goers, he's saying, but that doesn't mean that they can't be part of the UU religious movement.

It's a radical concept and one we ministers often argue against, saying such things as, "You aren't a Unitarian Universalist if you're not a church member, because the Unitarian Universalist Association is an association of congregations."

But I also know that there were a few years for me -- four of them, to be exact, the college years -- where I was not in a congregation but very much considered my religion to be Unitarian Universalism.  I didn't attend church in my college town, which didn't have a vital campus ministry in those years, and I would occasionally attend when I was home from school, but not often, because my church didn't have any specific get-together for those of us home on holidays or summers from college, and so I wandered off from us as an association of congregations, but not from my UU identity. 

I have trouble envisioning the way we strengthen these sorts of connections and grow this "movement" Morales speaks of, but I hope we'll keep talking about these ideas and exploring the potential.

In 1964, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, founder of the American Atheists, was called "the most hated woman in America." Judging from the response to Jessica Ahlquist, the love of atheists hasn't increased much.  Indeed, in 2009, a University of Minnesota research study published in the American Sociological Review showed atheists to be the most disliked minority group of those they polled, including Muslims and homosexuals. When asked to respond to the statement, "This Group Does Not At All Agree with My Vision of American Society," 39.6% agreed atheists do not (26.3% for Muslims, who came in second), and 47.6% would disapprove of their child marrying an atheist (33.5% for Muslims, again the next highest category).

So perhaps the vehemence directed toward 16-year-old Jessica Ahlquist should not be shocking.  Ahlquist is a teenager who attends Cranston High School West in Cranston, Rhode Island.  Cranston High School West had a prayer banner that hung in their school:
(picture from The Providence Journal: http://news.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/2012/01/federal-judge-o-1.html)  Jessica, an atheist, felt that this violated separation of church and state.  It did, according to the ruling issued by the U.S. District Court Judge last week.  The judge weighed in very clearly on this question, saying, "The Court refrains from second-guessing the expressed motives of the Committee members, but nonetheless must point out that tradition is a murky and dangerous bog. While all agree that some traditions should be honored, others must be put to rest as our national values and notions of tolerance and diversity evolve."

Since that time, and probably before as well, Jessica Ahlquist has received messages of hate and threats of violence and death.  She has been the victim of cyberbullying from within her community and without. Rhode Island state representative Peter G. Palumbo, who called her an "evil little thing."  Even some moderate Rhode Islanders with Cranston connections I talked to recently were saying things like, "I don't see why it can't stay there.  It's tradition.  If you don't like it, just don't look at it."

Over and over again, I see something like this, and I'm stunned.  I can't grasp what makes people so frightened, especially when they are the majority, of the actions and beliefs of a young girl.  It's a fundamental piece of my understanding of what makes America great that we create a space where people should be free from religious persecution and that the way we do this is through freedom of belief, lack of state-sponsored religion, and freedom of speech. 

Freedom of religion means that the government does not impose its religion on you.  It's what protects us from Sharia law, too.  These same people who are so incensed that a Christian banner is taken down from a public high school, well I'm sure the majority of them would not want a Muslim banner hung in its stead.  We keep hearing the panic that Sharia law is being declared in Muslim communities in America, like Dearborn, from the conservative Christian right.  But what protects us from being a country under Muslim law is exactly the same thing that demands that this banner be taken down.

But, of course, the fear of Muslims and the fear of atheists aren't logical, rational things. 

The obvious irony is that the words of the prayer call on people to grow morally, to be kind, to conduct themselves in a way that brings credit to the school, and to be good sports and smile when we lose.

If only everyone who wants the prayer to hang could at least try to live up to it.

 (Continuing from Part 1)

Well, it seems the video of young Girl Scout, Taylor, which asking you to boycott Girl Scout cookies because Girl Scouts is inclusive of transgender girls, has been taken down. There are a number of well-done responses from Girl Scouts that are available, however.  Some of my favorites are:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAnt5cqQ4Ss
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCDtaGCjujc
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qxWM3dxfbX0
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BChDci9mkE&feature=related
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=k85-CXLLIek

These Girl Scouts make several good points about what Girl Scouts is all about.  A primary one is about the Girl Scout Law.  In her original video, Taylor talked about the line of the Girl Scout Law that says, "Honest and Fair," and how Girl Scouts is somehow not being honest if they're not proclaiming loudly to everyone involved that there are transgender scouts, and who and where they are.  Obviously, the Girl Scouts are being honest about their policies, and fair in their implementation, but the Girl Scout Law has nine other pieces to it, many of which apply in this situation:

I will do my best to be
honest and fair,
friendly and helpful,
considerate and caring,
courageous and strong, and
responsible for what I say and do,
and to
respect myself and others,
respect authority,
use resources wisely,
make the world a better place, and
be a sister to every Girl Scout.

 It's obvious that the Girl Scouts in the response videos have learned what it means to be "considerate and caring," "courageous and strong," "friendly and helpful," "responsible for what I say and do," to "respect myself and others," and, most importantly, to "be a sister to every Girl Scout."

My biggest worry in all of this is that the Girl Scouts could bend to pressure from the right to change their policies in this and other areas.  They're under considerable pressure from the right about interactions with Planned Parenthood, the transgender and lesbian scouts issues, and religious freedom.   When I started as a troop leader two years ago, it was printed everywhere the Girl Scout Pledge was printed that girls could change the word "God" to any word representing the Girl Scout's belief.  That's still the official policy, but it was controversial.  And it's no longer on their website and it's not in my brand-new Brownie handbook where the law is printed, either.  So it's not clear to me how a new scout or a new scout leader would be clear that Girl Scouts, unlike Boy Scouts, gives them this religious freedom.  I worry about a new scout being told by a troop leader that they have to say the pledge as written, and taking that troop leader's word for it.  Similarly, the conservative websites tell me that where Planned Parenthood was previously mentioned, in places like staff members' bios, it has been "scrubbed" from the website.  There's nowhere on Girl Scouts USA's webpage where you're going to find the policy on transgender scouts, either. 

So while Girl Scouts is open and welcoming, it's cautious, understandably.  That's why it's important to me that we, on the religious left, know what Girl Scouts is standing for, and the pressure they're under, so we can be as supportive as possible.  Don't buy the cookies if you don't want cookies, but when your local Girl Scout comes to you for support, please know that this is an organization that is working to empower young girls; to teach them valuable leadership skills; and to teach them love and respect for their bodies, minds and spirits; the people around them; and the world around them.  Stop and tell the Girl Scouts that they have your support and you believe in what they do.  There is so much in the world around us that is teaching negative messages to girls about their capabilities and their bodies, that I'm grateful that not only does Girl Scouts exist, but that it is a place that is open and welcoming to all girls, and we don't have to change our religious or political beliefs to belong.

And if you do want cookies, they go on sale here January 20th, a week from today. 

I've never seen so much discussion among my liberal and ministerial friends about Girl Scouts.  Sure, there's the palm oil controversy which comes up every year at cookie time, and the confusion that people sometimes have between Boy Scouts of America's stances and Girl Scouts USA's stances.  The two are unrelated organizations, and Girl Scouts USA welcomes scouts to change the word "God" in the Girl Scout pledge to any word representing the scout's spiritual beliefs.  Girl Scouts also has not taken any stance limiting participation of lesbian or bisexual scouts or troop leaders.

The latest Girl Scout controversy is around transgender scouts.  And, once again, Girl Scouts has taken an inclusive stance.  The story that has caught the attention in the news is of a young girl, Bobby Montoya, who wanted to become a Girl Scout.  Bobby is a 7-year-old transgender girl.

The story first emerged that Bobby wanted to become a Girl Scout but had been turned down by a local Denver-area troop.  Bobby's parents then appealed to the council.  The council overturned the troop's decision, saying, "Girl Scouts is an inclusive organization and we accept all girls in Kindergarten through 12th grade as members. If a child identifies as a girl and the child's family presents her as a girl, Girl Scouts of Colorado welcomes her as a Girl Scout."  Some articles have misrepresented this as Girl Scouts as an organization taking one stance and then reversing it, when it was more of a matter of a local troop not following the inclusive policy that was in place.  When this story first emerged, I contacted Girl Scouts USA to ask about the policy on transgender scouts, and heard the same thing that I had heard from my local area coordinator and the same thing that the Colorado council said -- any child who says she is a girl and wants to be in Girl Scouts is welcome.  I had heard that the Denver-area troop leaders had responded by disbanding the troop, but when I research this, it turns out it looks like this is just rumor and misunderstanding.  It appears Bobby has not yet joined the troop, and that there have been no further developments on the situation in Colorado.  On the other hand, there are troops hosted at a conservative Christian school in Louisiana that have disbanded in protest. 

What's got people talking about this story again is a video by a California Girl Scout, Taylor [last name and troop number are being withheld, understandably].  Taylor urges you to boycott Girl Scout cookies because Girl Scouts admits transgender girls.  I'm having trouble embedding her video -- it seems to have been taken down, but I'm sure it'll be findable soon. 

Taylor's video is being spread through social media in thanks partly to the attention from conservative groups focused on pushing back against some of the more liberal and inclusive aspects of Girl Scouts, such as "Honest Girl Scouts" which takes issue with GSUSA for transgender scouts, but, more particularly, for some programs and events that have been done with Planned Parenthood, particularly at the international level (GSUSA is part of WAGGGS--the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouting).  Taylor's video, while it appears at first to be just one individual Girl Scout sticking up for her beliefs, ends with her plugging the Honest Girl Scouts organization. 

Just giving the background on this story was longer than I expected, so I'll share my thoughts and comments in a later post.

Lowe's recently pulled advertising from the show All-American Muslim, bowing to pressure from conservative groups such as the Christian Florida Family Association.  The president of that group, David Katon, said this on NPR:

Our concern with ‘All American Muslim’ is that it does not accurately represent the term Muslim, which is a follower of Islam and a follower of Islam believes in radicalization, the use of Sharia law, which provides for honor killings, mutilation of women and numerous other atrocities to women.

Despite how often we hear anti-Muslim rhetoric in our society, this piece of vitriol really shocked me.  His objection to the show is that it portrays moderate, average, peaceful American Muslims.  Apparently a religious extremist like Katon can't believe that moderates within other religions exist.  He paints a caricature of Muslims and then claims that anyone who doesn't look like his caricature isn't Muslim, and that moderate, peaceful Islam doesn't exist.

Of course it does.  This is ridiculous.

The Muslims on All-American Muslim are more more peaceful, more American, and more Godly than Katon and his organization.  His statements are a disgrace to the faith of real Christians, and thank goodness we aren't using his beliefs to paint a caricature of the religion he claims to be a part of, because he gives Christianity a bad name.  I'll take Dearborn Muslims over his Florida Christians any day as my neighbors and friends.

I was excited to see the show air, by the way, and watched an episode or two, because it highlights the sort of people here in Michigan that I've gotten to know and care for as part of my community.  Unfortunately, I found the show rather boring, which is, really, pretty good news.  It turns out that All-American Muslims?  Well, they're just like us.  In truth, they are us.  And that's just not very exciting TV in my book.  Now, vampires or dragons or something, those are different.

Meanwhile, shame on Lowe's, which has offered this chicken-hearted response:

Lowe's has received a significant amount of communication on this program, from every perspective possible. Individuals and groups have strong political and societal views on this topic, and this program became a lighting rod for many of those views. As a result we did pull our advertising on this program. We believe it is best to respectfully defer to communities, individuals and groups to discuss and consider such issues of importance.

No, Lowe's, what you did wasn't a response to controversy; what you did was a response to bigotry.  The controversy wasn't something you acted in response to, it was something caused by your action.  And your non-apology of "If we have made anyone question that commitment (to allowing people to have 'different views'), we apologize" isn't going to throw us off track while you continue to bow to the wishes of the hate-mongering bigots by not advertising on a show which is all about showing this thing you've just stated you have a commitment to--differing views.  You're daring to tell us that you have a commitment to allowing different views, and then pulling ads from a show highlighting difference because the bigots say different views can't really exist?  

We call bullshit.

Dashed off a letter to the UUA today.  Leaving off the official's name to whom I addressed it, the text of it was as follows:

I am writing to you as a Unitarian Universalist minister and as a Girl Scout Troop Leader and Girl Scout Troop Organizer. I’ve paid attention over many years to the “continuing struggle for inclusiveness” situation between the UUA and the Boy Scouts, as outlined at http://www.uua.org/re/children/scouting/169633.shtml.

I’m proud as a Girl Scout leader that Girl Scouts do not share the Boy Scouts’ discrimination towards atheist and agnostic scouts and troop leaders nor their discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender scouts and troop leaders. Indeed, I proudly tell my Brownie Girl Scouts on a regular basis that the Girl Scout Promise, which includes the word “God,” can be, according to Girl Scouts USA, replaced by any Girl Scout to reflect her own spiritual beliefs. I model this in my troop meetings by replacing the word “God” in the GS Promise with “love,” “earth,” “peace,” and another of other terms.

Similarly, Girl Scouts has recently been in the news for their inclusive policies on transgender Girl Scouts, and has come down on the side of believing that any child who considers herself a Girl and wants to be a Girl Scout is welcome in Girl Scouting. I confirmed this through calling GSUSA directly and asking about transgender girls being welcomed in scouting, and through conversations with my own area coordinator.

That’s why I am disturbed that right under the “UUA and BSA” page on the UUA’s website, the next link is to a list of “Alternative Scouting Organizations,” and that this page then begins with stating “In addition to the popular Boy Scouts of America and Girl Scouts of the USA, there are other scouting organizations.” (http://www.uua.org/re/children/scouting/169569.shtml.) This statement makes it look like the UUA has problems with Girl Scouts similar to the problems with Boy Scouts, and perpetuates a common misunderstanding that Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts are related organizations that share common policies and practices, when this is not the case. Girl Scouts ought to be listed as an “Alternative Scouting Organization” along with Camp Fire USA, Navigators USA, Scouting for All, and SpiralScouts. I grew up in Camp Fire, and can say that I have found Girl Scouts every bit as welcoming, if not more so, to girls of regardless of race, religion, socioeconomic status, disability, sexual orientation or other aspect of diversity. My little troop last year was a group of girls who through themselves and their parents represented every aspect of that list of diversity types, in fact!

I’m hoping the wording on the UUA’s webpage can be changed to represent the positive relationship that the UUA has with Girl Scouting. If you are not the person who this letter should be directed to, please tell me who I can refer this issue to. This March is the 100th anniversary of Girl Scouts, and I’ll be highlighting Girl Scouts in our church this year, where several Girl Scouts have earned their “My Promise, My Faith” badge for learning about how the Girl Scout Law relates to the Unitarian Universalist Principles. I would love it if by the 100th anniversary our organization could show more support for this inclusive and supportive scouting institution.

Thank you for your care and attention to this issue.

In faith,

Cynthia Landrum
Minister
Universalist Unitarian Church of East Liberty
Clarklake, MI
Girl Scout Troop Leader & Troop Organizer

I'd been having a rough day, when I came to the studio with my daughter to wait for an hour while she takes her class. In the last ten minutes, one stranger has offered to buy me a latte, and another has told me that I look really nice in purple.

Random acts of kindness, folks, go a long way. You never know when the person you just reached out to really needed that kind moment from a stranger.

Here's hoping I remember to pay it forward.

This is a shout-out to the GA Planning Committee, I suppose.  I know they're doing a lot of hard work, and I know that criticizing what they've done, when they have so many voices they've been asked to listen to and they've put a ton of thought & effort into things, is not helpful, constructive, or appreciated.  So without criticizing, what I want to say is that I want them to know how much work we, ought here in the non-UUA-committee world have been doing, as well.  We've been asked to prepare ourselves for this General Assembly, and I think we have been.  By the time I get to General Assembly, here's some of what I will have done:

• Read the UUA's "Common Read" book for 2010-2011, The Death of Josseline.
• Read other books on immigration.
• Read just about everything on the UUA's webpage on immigration.
• Read countless e-mails and websites from social justice agencies on the subject.  
• Attended workshops designed to prepare us for "Justice GA" at my district annual assembly at two consecutive district assemblies.  
• Attended a training from Standing on the Side of Love.
• Attended workshops and discussions at past GAs on the subject.
• Held congregational discussions on the subject.
• Preached on the subject.
• Participated in press conferences and social justice events at a state level.
• Held a Community Forum on the subject with local experts.
• Taken one or two semesters of Spanish and perhaps also immersed myself in an intensive study course, as urged in the Responsive Resolution from GA 2011.
• Participated in a UUMA chapter gathering focused on immigration justice and preparing us for the "Justice GA."

That's what I can think of off the top of my head.  I don't think it's atypical for a UU clergy person--I think it's probably typical of the amount of work we're personally putting in to prepare ourselves for this GA.  I know that's not everything I need to know.  But I didn't start off this process knowing nothing about how to do justice work, either.  And I also know that there are people who will have done a lot more than me, and people who will have done a lot less.  And I'm sure that I will need some of the "education and preparation" times announced in the preliminary schedule.  Since those are all on the early days, though, I worry that the people who have prepared the most before coming are the ones who will get the most preparation there, and vice versa. 

I know there's no way to know the preparation level of each participant, and so things have to be somewhat geared towards the least prepared. But I'm just wanting to let folks out there know that when you ask us to do our homework, there are definitely those of us who are listening and doing so.  If there can be something of a advanced track that's geared to us who have done so, that would be great.

I'm pouring out post after post on 9/11 to get out of my system those things which I need to say but which don't belong in my sermon.  This is done in hopes that once these things are out, I can see what is left.  What I know is left right now is the stone of hope that is hewn out of the mountain of despair.  Perhaps it is connected to those five smooth stones.  Or perhaps it is one of them.  What mountains do we hew the other four stones out of, then?  Grief, hope, memory, and even joy are all the tumblers now as I polish the stones up. 

I've been rereading what I wrote in those days after September 11th, 2001.  Here's what I said at our water communion service on September 16th, 2001:

9/11 had a large impact on my ministry.  About two years later, in 2003, now ministering in New England, my colleague Jennie Barrington and I, were talking often how 9/11 had shaped our ministry.  We also were big Simon and Garfunkel fans, and Simon and Garfunkel were doing their "Old Friends" reunion tour.  We bought two tickets to go see them in New Jersey, and we hit the road.  We went two places: the concert, and Ground Zero.  That was it -- we didn't do a Broadway show or see the Statue of Liberty, or go to the Met.  We had two things we wanted to do: that concert, and see Ground Zero for ourselves.

I had been to New York City only two or three times before -- once to visit a boyfriend in college over the summer, once with my college's Glee Club on a concert trip.  I had driven through it a couple of times on my way to New England, also, but all I can say about that is that the tunnels and bridges are expensive, and that driving through New York City six months after 9/11 with a truck full of furniture is a nerve-wracking experience.  I had never gone to see the World Trade Center when it was standing.  I've still never been to the Statue of Liberty, although I saw it from the ferry my first time there. 

So we drove with our bad Mapquest directions ("take the exit" -- which exit?) down to our hotel in New Jersey near the concert venue.  We listened to Simon and Garfunkel all the way down and all the way back, hearing some songs that we had never heard before on their newest release, such as "A Church Is Burning," which we heard with stunned ears, and replayed over and over again several times in a row, weeping, as we drove down.  We talked about how to use the song in worship, something I still haven't done.  And we went to the concert, which was a special treat not only getting to hear them, but hearing them in home turf, in the New York City area.

And then we went to Ground Zero.

There was no memorial there, of course.   What there was was a big pit where work was still going on uncovering things that had been pushed down into the earth by the collapse of the towers.  The area was surrounded by fences, tourists walking around, and people selling t-shirts and tchotchkes.  It was a strange and surreal experience standing there by the fence with nothing particular to say or do once we got there.  It had become more tourist site than memorial at that time.  Yet it was an important moment, this finally seeing it for ourselves, and understanding how big the area was.

I don't remember if we wept or if we prayed, or if we just walked around and looked.  I do remember that it changed us.

When I was younger, particularly, but really for a lifetime, I can remember instances where people were talking about how they remember where they were when they heard that John F. Kennedy was shot or that Martin Luther King, Jr. was shot.  I was born after both of those instances.  But I could tell that there was something important about sharing those memories.  For my generation, we had a bit of this with the Challenger Space Shuttle explosion.  I remember that I was in science class at school when I heard about it.  But for us, really, it's now 9/11 that holds this strange fixed moment in our cultural consciousness.  I think it's true not just for us, but maybe a bit more so, since we aren't old enough to have experienced those tragic deaths of JFK and MLK, much less the World War II moments that still loom large for that greatest generation.

My story of 9/11/01 is intricately woven with the beginning of my ministry.  I was in my first month of ministry, fresh out of seminary.  I had started about a week into August, and the Sunday following 9/11/01 would be our ingathering  Sunday, the official start to the church year.  I was at home in my new Houston apartment when I got a call from our music director.  She asked me if I had heard the news, if I had my television on.  I hadn't.  I remember her saying, "The World Trade Center is gone.  It' gone."  I turned on my television as she told me the news.  And she asked me, "Do you think we should have a vigil this evening?"  I said, "I'm not sure, I'll call you back in a few with a decision.  Let me process this."

Two more calls from church members followed in rapid succession to make sure I had heard the news and to find out if we would have a service.  By the second one, I said yes, and started to make all the plans -- called the music director to start planning the musical elements, called the president to start the phone tree so that people would get the news, and had somebody calling the television stations to get us on the list of services. 

In my memory it was that very day, but perhaps it was the next day, that I had a meeting with the local Houston-area UU ministers.  What a blessing that was.  They shared resources that they had been thinking about for vigils and for the following Sunday: Annie Dillard, Anne Frank, Adrienne Rich. 

I get the vigil we had and the following Sunday conflated in my memory.  I know at the Sunday service we had our usual water communion.  And I remember somebody bringing water from their trip to the World Trade Center.  Whether it was actual water from there or symbolic water, I can't tell you.  To me, it was water that came from the World Trade Center, and it was there with us in our water communion.  I've carried that water as part of our water communion since -- I took some water from that water communion with me to my next congregation, and to the one that followed (my current congregation), and saved water from year to year.  The World Trade Center is still there in the drops of water we pour every year into our common bowl at our water communion. 

Other things I remember from those services are that we had a fireman in our congregation who shared the Fireman's Prayer with us, and that even as far away as Houston, there were people with connections at the Pentagon and in New York City.  We shared with the entire country the pain, the fear, and the longing to get up and go and be of some help as we watched the endless process to try to find survivors and identify the dead unfold through our television sets.

This was the beginning of my ministry as a UU minister.  And that I ministered through this time is still one of my biggest accomplishments as a minister.  Nothing in seminary had prepared us for this situation.  Those of us who were new in the field had had no training on how to craft a vigil after 9/11, how to minister to the fear and pain that was a national experience like this, how to be a non-anxious presence when the entire country was feeling the most anxiety it had ever felt in our lifetime.  We were new and green in a raw and earth-shattering moment. 

I didn't do everything perfectly, I know.  I remember the competing tensions even then about patriotism and religion -- Do we sing "God Bless America"?  Do we use a flag print cloth as our altar cover?  But as I look back now as a minister with ten years experience, and open the files and read my words from that time in 2001, I wouldn't do anything differently.  It was real and genuine.  I'll be using some of those same resources my Houston colleagues shared with me from 2001 in 2011, and am still grateful for what I learned from them on that September day.  

There are a lot of people who have written a lot of wise words about how to talk to children about 9/11.  I'm not a child psychologist, or a teacher, or an expert on trauma.  I am a parent, though, and ultimately every parent has to handle this themselves, whether or not they are also a a child psychologist, teacher, or trauma expert.

So I talked to my child about 9/11 today on the way to school in the car.  She was born a few years after 9/11/01, so it wasn't something that had really come up before.  But we had switched the radio from NPR to her favorite music station--the one that plays all the pre-teen pop songs--and they were talking about 9/11.  So I just asked her, "Do you know what they're talking about when people are talking about 9-11 or September 11th?"  She didn't.  So I told her, in simple terms, that on September 11th, ten years ago, before she was born, some men, which we call terrorists, had taken over some planes, using knives, and wanted to kill everyone, so they flew the planes into buildings and crashed them, and that they did this with three planes, and two of the buildings, the World Trade Center or "Twin Towers" had completely collapsed, and a lot of people had died on that day.  And then I just answered her questions -- she's pretty bold about asking questions.  And that let me know where her thoughts were.  And I made sure to tell her two things -- first, that this was why they check people over a lot more now before we go on airplanes, so that would keep us safer, and, secondly, that there were a lot of people who were heroes on that day, like some people on a fourth plane who stopped that plane from hitting a fourth building. 

Her questions were:
Why do people want to remember this now, and talk about it?
Why did those people want to crash the planes?
Why did they hate us?

Ten years is a long time when you're not ten yet.  However, explaining why we want to remember, when people are still sad, is easy to do for a kid who has done funerals for her pets.  Answering "Why did they hate us?" on a car ride to school is less easy.  I told her that I didn't really completely understand this, either. 

How do we explain acts of violence to our children?  It's definitely not easy.  I'm still working on this one.  Meanwhile what I want her to know at her age, the age of nightmares, is that we've worked to make things safer, and that most people on that day acted in good ways, and that's a big part of what we want to remember.

Almost two weeks ago, a blogger going by "Wondertwisted" wrote a blog post titled A 'Dear John' Letter to Unitarian Universalism.  (Her real name appears to be "Cindy" based on the responses to the post, but since I'm a Cindy, that's confusing, so we'll call her "WT.")  In her post, WT outlines the reasons why she's leaving Unitarian Universalism.  The blog post immediately got a lot of my colleagues talking about it, mostly on Facebook as they posted up the piece.  I've been thinking about WT's post since then, and am still not really ready to put out a full response, but here goes for a bit anyway.

I understand what it is my colleagues are saying when they are sympathizing with Wondertwisted.  They see in her post a desire for a deeper spiritual experience in Unitarian Universalism.  It's connected to the "Language of Reverence" discussions that went around a few years ago and the "Whose Are We" discussions the UUMA has started.  The recent UU World piece by David Bumbaugh articulated this neatly, as well. 

I also understand the yearning for a Unitarian Universalism that is more embracing of its Christian past.  I serve a church with a high percentage of UU Christians, and I'm the child of UU Christians, and I think it's very important to create a religious atmosphere in UU churches that is welcoming and embracing of UU Christians.  And I know that there are UU churches where UU Christians have felt the atmosphere to be hostile to their beliefs.  I've heard this from a family member, for one thing.  I've worked hard to discourage this kind of attitude whenever I've seen it.  And I know some see in WT an articulating of how hostile our churches can sometimes be.

I read Wondertwisted a little differently, however.  First of all, I'd like to say that while I want Unitarian Universalism to grow, I don't envision a world wherein everyone becomes Unitarian Universalist.  It's well and good that people are different religions--I like religious diversity in the world.  So I don't mourn that UCC members are members of the UCC and not the UUA.  That's great that the UCC is there and that we have so much in common with them.  And I think UU churches are sometimes a stopping point for religious wanderers on their way to somewhere else.  That's okay with me, too.  Not everybody who walks through our doors is really going to find that Unitarian Universalism is what that person is looking for.  And a lot of what people are looking for and not finding in our church is something a lot more Christian than what we are. 

So there are UU Christians and there are UUs who are not Christian and there are Christians who are not UU.  And it's good that there are all these categories.

I think Wondertwisted may be, as she describes herself, a "Unitarian Christian," but she's not a UU Christian, and it's great that she's figured that out and gone off to somewhere where they are more Christian and maybe less Unitarian, but more what she's looking for.  Let me explain.

It's comes down to this passage:

I was at a UU leadership function. I met a really smart, really energetic and sweet guy. The kind of guy that any church elder or pastor would love to recruit onto the board. He volunteered his path to me: “I’m a Buddhist-Humanist,” he said. Then he took a swig of fair trade coffee while I told every particle of my being that, no, I would NOT roll my eyes.

You can’t be a Buddhist-Humanist. You just can’t.

Here's the thing: Yes, you can.  And that's part of what Unitarian Universalism is about.  She says, "Be a Buddhist or a Humanist and do the work, because I suspect that claiming a hybrid philosophy might have something to do with wanting to be “spiritual” without the messy work of transformation."  But sometimes "doing the work" of theology is in studying and understanding multiple religious traditions and understanding that each of them have to be adapted in some way to fit with one's own spiritual beliefs.  I know there are critics of Building Your Own Theology out there, but I think it had a lot of things right.  In Unitarian Universalism we do pick and choose and create hybrid theologies.  And in many cases this is because we have "done the work" -- a lot more so than your average non-hybrid-believer.  By way of example, a recent Pew study showed that atheists know a lot more about religion than the average believer. 

It's frankly very easy to see how a UU can be a Buddhist-Humanist.  Those two faith traditions have a lot in common.  And neither Buddhism nor Humanism is a dead, unchanging, ungrowing thing.  They both have flexibility in them.  But one who sees the definitions of Humanism or Buddhism as so rigid that one can't find a home in both?  Well, it's not surprising to me to hear that person doesn't feel at home in Unitarian Universalism.

Not everyone is comfortable with ambiguity, with gray areas, with the lack of rigid definitions, of course.  I often say that what makes UU Christians and UU Buddhists and UU Pagans and UU Humanists all UU is that we all believe we don't have all of the answers, and that we can learn from one another.  We believe in the value of coming together in religious diversity and sharing our religious journeys. 

So blessings on your journey, Wondertwisted.  I'm glad you've figured out where your religious home is.  And it's okay that it's not us. 

As many of you may be aware, I have my bachelor's and an M.A. in English literature, and I often teach introduction to composition at the local community college in addition to ministry.  I'm teaching again this fall, and am thinking over my point of view about pronouns, specifically the use of "they" as a singular gender-neutral third-person pronoun.

My previous perspective had been that I was there to teach them to abide by the MLA style, and that the MLA style did not (yet) allow for the singular use of "they."  Therefore, I have been marking this as a pronoun/noun error on papers for years.  As far as I can determine, the MLA, Chicago, and APA style manuals all still recommend "he or she" or "he/she" or making the subject plural.  The Chicago Style Manual states:

A singular antecedent requires a singular referent pronoun. Because he is no longer accepted as a generic pronoun referring to a person of either sex, it has become common in speech and in informal writing to substitute the third-person plural pronouns they, them, their, and themselves, and the nonstandard singular themself. While this usage is accepted in casual contexts, it is still considered ungrammatical in formal writing.

 The Chicago Style Manual recommends all the usual work-arounds: "he or she," plural subjects, imperative mood, rewrite the noun, revise the sentence, etc.  I couldn't find as clear a statement out of the MLA or APA, but my understanding is that they offer the same options.  The textbook I'm using for my class, The Little Seagull Handbook, offers these same work-arounds. 

My job, as I saw it, was to teach them to learn to use the MLA style and their handbook, and so I followed its rules.

However, there is one big problem with the he/she-type work-around: it leaves out people who do not use male or female pronouns to describe themselves.  And in the transgender community, use of alternative pronouns is becoming more common, particularly use of "zhe" or "hir."  Not everyone considers themselves as someone either male or female--we don't all fit neatly into two little boxes.  I could have students list all the pronouns, but as awkward as "he or she" is, certainly something like "he, she, zhe, or hir" would be more awkward. 

There's an interesting story here about how we took a situation that was understood as sexist--the use of "he" to mean people of all genders--and then created a popular usage, "he or she," that was still discriminatory.  And the grammar handbooks are still fighting the first problem and sometimes not even acknowledging the second one.  For example, the Little Seagull Handbook says, "Sexist language is language that stereotypes or ignores women or men... Writers once used he, him, and other pronouns as a default to refer to people whose sex was unknown to them...  Use both masculine and feminine pronouns joined by or."  The Chicago Manual of Style similarly gives this as an option without recognition of the justice problem that it creates in section 5.225--Nine techniques for achieving gender neutrality: "Use he or she (sparingly)."

There's one clear answer to this justice problem, and it's the one they all avoid: "they."  I try to avoid it in formal writing, but I do it in speech all the time.  It's being used commonly in speech, and grammar rules should follow usage, not dictate usage, is one argument.  It's a similar situation, one can argue, to what happened with the word "you."  "You" was originally a plural pronoun, and the singular was "thou."  Now we use a plural pronoun as a singular one with no issue, except for the need to create a new plural such as y'all.  (Heavens, let's hope we don't get a "th'all" emerging!)

We don't really, however, use "they" in a complete singular way.  We switch our sentences mid-stream to plural.  So we don't take the sentence, "A student can use whichever pronoun he or she wants" and replace "he or she" with "they" and say, "A student can use whichever pronoun they wants."  We say, rather, "A student can use whichever pronoun they want."  We change the verb there at the end to reflect the fact that "they" is a plural pronoun.  If I'm allowing for a singular "they" it should be followed by a singular verb, yes?  But that's not what we're doing in speech.  And we're not going to drop "he" or "she" as pronouns anytime soon and just move to totally using they and having plural verbs for singular subjects.  So it's still all mixed up.

I've explained all this to my students, and told them that I want them to learn to use the style recommended and that I think this will change in the next few years and the style manuals will accept "they" as a gender-neutral singular pronoun, but until they do, I want them to be aware of how they're using their pronouns and follow the style manual.

But I'm swayed now by the justice argument.  I was told of a situation in which the University of Michigan, my alma mater, dealt with this in a policy and ended up rewriting the sentences to avoid "he or she" or the singular "they" in order to be both grammatically and politically correct, when the justice advocates and the rhetoricians couldn't agree.  The UU Ministers Association, I learned recently, embraces the singular "they" as a solution. 

I would like to allow my students to use the singular "they," but at the same time I want them to be aware of what they're doing.  I'm thinking of some sort of solution where they indicate their awareness through asterisks or brackets or italics: they, *they*, [they].  That would show they're aware of the singular pronoun, and I would like them to be.  But that's as disruptive to the eye, on an aesthetic level, as people would think something like "z/s/he" would be. 

So what will I do?  I think, in the end, there's only one solution: explain it all, but let the student do whatever they want.  There's still no reason I can't crack down on apostrophes.  Thank goodness, because as fond as I was of pointing out pronoun/noun disagreements, the apostrophes are where my real passion is. 

A few months ago, as Borders closed some of its stores, I wrote this blog post.  This week we get the word that Borders is completely liquidating and will be no more. 

When I came to Jackson, Michigan, seven years ago, we had several small bookstores.  None of them were great.  Almost all of them are now out of business.   What's gone?  Best Books in Jackson Crossing, a small bookstore in a strip mall on West Ave., another small bookstore that was on West Ave. (I can't even remember their names), the Nomad Bookstore on Mechanic (which both came and went during these years), and now, we'll see the Waldenbooks in Jackson Crossing close, as well.

Where can you buy a book, other than online, in town?

• You can buy textbooks at Baker College and Jackson Community College.
• You can buy Christian books at Agape in Jackson Crossing.
• You can buy children's books at the Toy House and a lesser number at Toys R Us.
• You can buy comic books at Nostalgia, Ink. 
• You can buy used books at the Jackson Book Exchange.
• And you can buy bestsellers at Meijer, Target, and I think K-Mart and Wal-Mart (I seldom shop at these two). 

Honestly, our book selection won't be much different with Waldenbooks gone -- which perhaps was part of the problem.  The real loss was the Nomad, which carried a somewhat different selection from all the rest, although it was still not the selection I was usually looking for. 

But since we don't have much selection here, much less a bookstore with a comfy chair to curl up in, I did most of my book shopping in Ann Arbor or Lansing.  In Ann Arbor, there were three big Borders a year ago, and one Barnes and Noble.  I suspect that Barnes and Noble will become very overrun unless another big store pops up in town.  Ann Arbor, you would think, could support at least one more bookstore in town.  Hopefully Barnes and Noble or Books-a-Million will seize the opportunity.  Meanwhile, I may head to Lansing, which still has all of its big bookstores -- two Barnes and Nobles, and, even better, two Schuler's Books.  I've just discovered they have weekly online coupons, which makes them more price-competitive, and they're locally owned--like Borders once was.


*sigh*  I will miss it.  Goodbye, Ann Arbor institution.

For the record, I'm not really opinionated about what is being called the "hot mess" -- the resignation of two members of the GA Planning Committee. I don't know enough about the internal politics of the GAPC or the UUA Board to really weigh in on the issue.  Kim Hampton's post about the roll of worship and the SLT in the Justice GA is informed and informative.  And I think Tom Schade is right on point to say, "It's always useful to remember that the future hasn't happened yet."

I am opinionated about the "Justice GA," on the other hand.  And I know for every person who was sitting in the Plenary Hall when we voted for a "Justice GA" there was a separate opinion, and not all of our expectations can be met.  Half of us probably think that there should be a Service of the Living Tradition, and half of us don't.  Half of us think there should be an exhibit hall, and half of us don't.  And the half that do and the half that don't for each item are a mix of those interested in the idea of the Justice GA and those that aren't. But I know this: there are a lot of people who've never gone to at GA before who are considering going to this one, because they understand that this year our denomination is doing something important and meaningful and different.  There are people who can only go a GA once in a while who are making a special point to be at this one.  The energy and excitement about the possibilities are high.

What we voted on was, to my mind, instead of doing business and usual and in lieu of cancelling or moving the 2012 General Assembly, to have a Justice GA where business as usual was minimized.  My fear is that "business as usual" will be taken to mean only the actual business of the General Assembly -- the business resolutions, Actions of Immediate Witness, and other such business of the plenary. 

On the other hand, I am also concerned that for people with mobility issues there will be nothing that they can attend if more and more is focused on off-site justice work.  I'm personally dedicating myself to starting to learn Spanish this year in preparation for the Justice GA, as suggested to us in one of this year's Responsive Resolution--this represents a real investment of both time and money, neither of which I have a lot to spare. 

And at the same time, I'm worried that I won't be able to even attend GA because I don't handle a lot of heat well, nor a lot of walking and standing, and if everything involves a combination of the two, it will be extremely difficult for me.  This year and past years have been a "hot mess" for me when it comes to how we handle accessibility.  During one GA (Ft. Worth), I very badly sprained my ankle -- it dislocated and then popped back into place in the process.  I needed help with mobility.  The planning for GA didn't include extra scooters; I was very lucky that one person who had ordered one had never shown up.  This year, when our Standing on the Side of Love rally was a bit of a hike in the hot weather, I heard the announcement that if we needed to take a cab, we could get reimbursed later (already not the best system), and that cabs would be waiting outside the conference center.  I didn't hear that it was at a different door, so I followed the crowd out the side door -- no cabs.  I went back in and found out where I was supposed to go, and went out -- no cabs were waiting.  This was not a particularly well-orchestrated initiative, from my point of view.  It's very important for the Justice GA to remember that what is a "short walk" for one person in a huge obstacle for another, particularly in heat that many are not used to dealing with.

So, with all that said, here's what I, personally, would love to see:

• No exhibit hall.  It's become more and more pointless anyway.  All of these agencies can be found online.  We can shop online, and we can see their justice issues online.  Instead, create a virtual exhibit hall that people can visit from anywhere.
• A Justice Hall instead.  If people need downtime and a place to wander or socialize, give them small tasks to do, like letters to write to elected officials. 
• One or two workshop slots only.  There may be some workshops that are essential to hold, or exiting lecturers that we really want to feature, and there can be a some large justice-oriented workshops on how to build a movement, how to do social justice, how to engage cooperatively with other organizations, ARAOM work, etc.  
• Instead of workshop slots, we have justice slots.  As for the all-justice slots, I would like to see not just large social justice rallies in these spots, but places where small groups go off into different parts of the area to work with local organizations on different projects.  There needs to be great variety.  And this probably means a sort of schedule where we commit to what we're doing in advance.  And it means buses. 
• I would like to see the following cornerstone elements of GA: the Ware Lecture, the Service of the Living Tradition, and the Sunday morning worship service (which I would love to be the SLT again, but that's a whole other argument).  I think all can be themed around this justice work, and all are important to what makes up a General Assembly.  For the newcomers to GA, they would give the important taste of what GA is usually about.
• All Reports -- all reports -- given in written and video ahead of time and no reports -- no reports -- presented verbally during plenaries.  We can do our homework ahead of time.  
• A single plenary session to deal with all remaining business that we haven't been able to put off or voted this year to do next year.
• Yes, more worship.  When we can't be doing justice work, we should be praying, singing, and celebrating.
• I would like to see Ministry Days themed around the Justice GA in the following ways: a Berry Street Address that's on theme; minimal business; a group action project; drop the "collegial conversations" element in favor of group social action; drop the usual conversation with the UUA President in favor of having him lead us in justice work as well.

Most of all, I want this experience to be meaningful and transformative for me and for our movement.

Obviously I'm not going to get all my wishes.  Nor is anybody else.  Meanwhile, let's have patience and understanding with the Board and Planning Committee as they do the hard work of creating a GA experience unlike any other.

It turns out I was over-thinking the maps option.  I had created a page called "Directions" which had the address and phone number and an embedded customized Google map of  the church in it (200x300 pixels).  This was entirely workable.  Someone could change the size of the map and move it up & down and so forth, to see what they wanted to see.  It was pretty much like this:


View Larger Map

But this wasn't what I really wanted.  I wanted to click on it and have the option pop up of going to my navigation app on the phone.

I discovered that if I clicked on the (plain text--no hyperlink) address itself that I had typed above the embedded map, I would get such a pop-up asking if I wanted to do that.  But this wasn't intuitive enough and some people might not know their phones work this way (and some phones might not do it, for all I know).

Then this weekend someone sent me directions to an event using Mapquest. When I went to print the directions, Mapquest asked me if I wanted to send the directions by text message to my phone.  When I did this, and the text message had a simple link.  When I tried clicking on that link, I had the option of using my navigation app or going to the browser.  Unfortunately, when I clicked navigation, it didn't work right -- it didn't put in the address.  When I went to the browser, however, I was then able to go back over to the navigation app and have the address appear in there to navigate to.

So I tried just putting a Mapquest link to the church on the mobile Directions page that was like this:  MAP.  My phone, when I clicked on it, didn't offer me the navigation app option.  So much for that. But it did take me to a very nice little Mapquest mobile version (which I do have to say seemed to offer more choices than Google's). 

So then I went back to Google, wondering what would happen if I just linked to the map rather than embedding it, like this:  MAP.  Success!  Clicking on it offered me the directions of going to Google's very nice mobile version of their map, or using my app.  I switched my directions page on the Mobile home page to be linked to the map, rather than linked to a page with the link on it, and it's done! 

Moral of the story: Whether you have a mobile version of your church webpage or not, instead of embedding the map, it would be good to provide a link to the Google map (or do both).  That way mobile users--at least those with Android phones like mine--will have the option of getting their navigation app to give them directions on how to get to your church as they drive there.  And even if it doesn't, Google will automatically route them to a mobile version of their map, which will be sized more appropriately for the phone than your embedded map is.

Why?

Some time ago I installed a button from Extreme Tracking on the bottom of my church website, inconspicuously, I hoped.  I don't pay for the service, so I only get the free version, which tells me about the last twenty people to visit the website.  At the time, I was noticing the diversity of browsers people were using--the usage had changed from almost exclusively Internet Explorer to a diversity of browsers with Explorer representing the largest percentage, but less than half, and Firefox hot on its heels.  The big question then was how to design a page such that it looked good at different resolutions and through different browsers.  That was just a couple of years ago.  Earlier this week when I looked at data on the last twenty users, six were from mobile phones (one of which I could rule out as mine).  With one-fourth of the users looking at the website from mobiles, I knew I needed a church webpage that was friendlier to mobile usage.  I suspect that mobile phone users are more likely to be "seekers" than members, but I have no data to back that up, except that I could see search terms and know that some were coming from Google, some from my blog page, and some were going to the site directly.

So this week I've been working on a mobile version of the webpage.  It's available at http://www.libertyuu.org/mobile, if you want to check it out.  (Our regular page, for comparison, is at http://www.libertyuu.org, although I hope to redesign it next week because I'm pretty unhappy with its look currently.)  I suggest you check the mobile site out on a phone, as that's what it's made for, and it looks strange on a PC.  I don't yet have the script in place that would automatically route mobile users to it, but am working toward that goal.  And there's a big question about iPad and other tablet users, whether they should be directed to the mobile site or the full site.

Content

I don't have any digital video or audio capability at my church, so both webpages are heavily text-based, and the mobile site more so, since I didn't want to direct them off too often to outside pages.  The goal here was to keep information as brief as possible, and put up the things that seekers would most want to find.  Brevity is not my strong suit, as anyone who knows me can attest to, so I'm still working on trimming it down.  But I finally settled on nine links: Sunday Services, Directions, Religious Education, Social Justice, Newsletter, Beliefs, Shop, Phone, and More Information.  I figured that what seekers want to know is when, where, and what they'd be getting from us, so "Worship" tells the "when," "Directions" (and "Phone") tells the "where," and all the rest are the key pieces for the "what" -- worship, religious education, social justice, and newsletter.  The "More Information" lists staff members and the church e-mail and phone (again).  "Shop" lets people go through our Amazon Associates account to shop on Amazon.com, guessing that some people might do this from their phones (although maybe, like me, they go through their Amazon apps, so this might have little appeal).  There's a lot on our regular webpage that there's no link to here -- staff bios, church history, sermons, forms, by-laws.  All that is stuff I'm guessing the average mobile user doesn't need.  But I do intend to go back and add a link to the full site.  And then, at the bottom, I have links to our Facebook page, Twitter, and all the icons that usually appear to tell people we're welcoming, accessible, etc.  The other icons are all linked to a page that explains what they all are.

How to Do This:

The biggest question for me in doing this wasn't the question of what content to put on the page, but how to make what I call "the box" -- how to size my page correctly so that it's the right size for mobile phones.  This is particularly complicated since mobile phones have a wide range of screen sizes.   My father, William Landrum, is my tech support, but he hadn't done this before either, so we went through some trial and error before we got it to where I think it's right for most phones.  It turns out it's not so much about creating a page where we create everything in a small box.  When we did that, we got a phone screen where all the date was in a smaller box on the corner of the phone screen.  The key is having a piece in there that tells the phone that this is designed for it.  In the code, before head, even before where it says html, it says:

{?xml version = '1.0' encoding = 'UTF-8'?}
{!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//WAPFORUM//DTD XHTML Mobile 1.0//EN" "http://www.wapforum.org/DTD/xhtml-mobile10.dtd"}

except that { and } are lesser-than and greater-than symbols -- I can't seem to type them in my blog without it becoming the code.  I'm too lazy right now to figure out the work-around which I assume is pretty simple although complicated to Google, so I'm going this route. If you look at the code on the page, you'll see everything easily.  It's in pretty-straight-forward html without bells and whistles.  Anyway, that code does the trick, and the webpage is sized correctly.  As long as whatever tables (and the cells in the table) you're using don't have a specified width or height, everything will wrap to fit on the mobile screen.  Then it's just a matter of designing it such that you're not putting too much text up there, so that people don't have to scroll too much.  You do want fonts and icons bigger than usual to make them easier to tap on.  I'm going with font sized 5 (18pt), and it's workable, although perhaps still on the small side for larger fingers.  My icons on the bottom are sized about 32 pixels high, and again they're on the small side to easily tap on. 

One trick we've learned is that just like you can make a link on e-mail addresses that opens up an e-mail program to send mail, you can make a link that will have people's phones go straight to their dialer.  This is something that often really irritates me when browsing the web on my phone, that I can't just tap on the phone and have the phone dial.  It turns out it's because people haven't coded the phone number to do so, because they're assuming browsing from a PC, where you can look at the number and pick up your phone and dial it while still looking at the number.  I can't count the number of times I've had to search for something to write on while holding my phone, so that I could dial and look at the phone number at the same time (no, I can't remember a ten digits easily, and that may be true for more people than you think, especially with a small child in the back of the car making all sorts of noise).  So even if you don't design a mobile webpage, go to your existing page and hyperlink your phone number, people.  Inside the angle brackets just type something that looks like a href="tel:5175294221", only with your phone number instead of my church's.  It's that simple.  Can you believe that every company isn't doing this?  Ridiculous, when you think about it.  But, like many of us, they're not realizing yet that a) a lot of their traffic is coming from phones and b) those people want to call for information or reservations or something, and c) it's this easy!  Yes, if you're using an app to find your restaurant or other business, the app will often do this.  But sometimes people search through a browser, too--and maybe more often for a church than for a restaurant. Can you tell I feel strongly about this?  Nobody is clicking on your phone number from their phone hoping to be able to write it down on paper and use it later.  They're happy it goes straight to the dialer, where they can hit "send" or they can save it in their contacts for later.  Trust me.

Now, if only I could figure out how to link the address such that it opens up their navigation app, I'd be set.  And, sadly, the Twitter and Facebook go to the mobile browser version, not to the often nicer apps.  I want to put a link up for Gowalla and Foursquare to our locations, although this will have the same issue.  And I'm thinking adding a "like" button for Facebook and a "+1" button for Google wouldn't hurt, either, although then I'm getting into space limitations again.  And then if the church gets a Google+ presence, there'll be that to deal with, too.

Ironically, what takes up the most space is the name of my church -- Universalist Unitarian Church of East Liberty.  It wraps to take up three lines of space once I put it next to a chalice picture.  For a seeker site, I don't like the acronym option, so I think I'm stuck with it, but it's wasted space on a phone.  That's something that, for example, Micah's Porch or our local nondenominational Westwinds has right.  I remember when the first church I served, the Northwest Community Unitarian Universalist Church, whose acronym is nearly as long as "Westwinds," took a vote, which narrowly failed, to change their name.  I can't remember for sure what the other option was (a lot had been discussed, and this is ten years ago now), but I think it was "Harmony Church."  I'm guessing when any of you are designing a mobile page you'll be wishing, as I do, for a name more like "Harmony Church" and less like "First Unitarian Universalist Society of Eastern Suburb of Big City."  I appreciate the desire to have our heritage and denomination present in our naming of ourselves, and I wouldn't propose going through a name change, having seen how difficult a subject it is, but never has it been more awkward than in designing for a screen about 200 pixels wide.

Well, that's all there is to it.  I appreciate comments & suggestions for improvement, and am happy to answer questions if I know the answer.  I've often felt like saying, however, in my best Bones McCoy voice (if I had one, which I don't--really), "Damn it, Jim, I'm a minister, not a website designer!"

In Part 1 of this series I wrote about a proposal being generated through blog discussion about shorter sermons tied to social media in new ways.  In Part 2 I wrote about some of the limitations as I see it.  The main take-away there is that while some populations of some churches may be ready for this, others are not over the threshold yet.  The problem is that we're on a cusp right now, where some "digital natives" are ready for something different, not everyone is comfortable with the use of it.  As you go up by age/generation, a smaller percentage of people are using social networking. 



So what can we do?  Well, there's still a lot.  I think for now it still means that for many congregations, having a physical space in which one holds worship is still necessary, and the cornerstone of that service is still the sermon.  And, at the same time, the UUA General Assembly changed the definition of congregation such that this is no longer the only way (except for CLF) to be a congregation. The possibilities of what that can look like are endless.  And social media is evolving so quickly that whatever one creates right now has to be dynamic and flexible.  This week, for example, I got on Google+ for the first time.  Will it make other social networks obsolete?  Will it be a big failure?  Only time will tell. 

What I can do, right now, is dependent upon what will be supported by my congregation and has the most ability to be attractive to newcomers, as well.  We don't have a critical mass on Twitter or MySpace, and responding to blog posts is sporadic but increasing.  Facebook conversation, however, is plentiful.  So what is possible is putting out, primarily through blog and Facebook, a conversation starter leading into the worship service that helps shape and inform it, and after the worship service putting out some summary that continues the conversation.  This could be tied into a way to also have this conversation in a physical space before and after, for those wanting the face-to-face connection.  We have no way to record audio or video digitally at the church--when we do, it's with borrowed equipment--so that remains in the future dreams list.  The degree to which social media shapes the worship, then, is the degree to which people participate in these types of forums.

What I think is that for a time, this is going to look like not much happening.  But eventually, it has the power to shape and transform worship.  What it amounts to now is just an opening up and demystifying of the process--less of me going into the office and shutting the door and emerging with a worship service like Athena coming fully-formed out of Zeus' head, and more like writing with a bunch of people chatting around me in a coffee shop and sometimes stopping by the table.  Can I write that way?  Time will tell.  I've gotten lots of practice by having a child popping in constantly -- about ten times while writing this blog post alone.  Having constructive adults popping into the conversation should be a welcome change.

Phil Lund suggested we turn the sermon inside-out.  I'm not doing that yet, but the first step to turning something inside-out is opening it up and showing the center.  That's where I propose starting for now.

So in my last post I talked about a proposal being generated to look at worship, particularly the sermon, in a new way in the light of social networking.  I think it's worth noting that the authors of the three posts I cited are all people who are not full-time solo ministers with the corresponding preaching schedule that such demands, and that Dan Harper, who comes the closest to that role in his role as Associate Minister, is in a large church with presumably some staff, and in Silicon Valley, as well.  What he describes seems less doable in a small country church such as I serve.  So here's what I see as the limitations to the model he proposes:

1.  Podcasting/Live streaming/any audio or video component -- Much as I love the idea of it, I don't have the technology for it.  And should I have the technology, I still don't have the tech support that I personally would need.  I could acquire the know-how to do it all on my own, given the technology, but right now that's beyond me.

2.  Level of feedback/discussion -- right now, when I do post a sermon on my blog, or just on blog posts in general, I'm getting one or two comments, at most, and often times none, from members of my congregation.  I think that some would be interested in the types of discussions Harper suggests, but it'd be hit or miss on participation.  In a small church there just might not be the critical mass to have this kind of discussion going.

3.  Receptivity -- My cell phone has no bars at my church.  Now, I'm on the comparatively lousy Sprint network, and I know some church members have better coverage at my church, but not all of them.  So Twittering during the service is narrowed down from just the people with phones that can tweet to people with phones that can tweet who aren't on roaming.

3.  Accessibility -- I'm guessing about 75% of my church is on e-mail and Facebook, and another 10% are on e-mail but no other social media, but the other 15% (mostly seniors) are not online at all.  (All numbers pure guesses, although I could go person-by-person and get real stats later.)  If the entire nature of a sermon is changed such that it doesn't feel complete without online participation, what does that mean for the 15%?

This brings me to the expectations.  Both Lund & Wells talk about the changing expectations for a sermon.  Wells talks about thinking that if he were to give a 20-minute sermon that people would be fact-checking his data on their smart phones.  I regularly give 15-20 minute sermons (I think my average is more like 15 minutes, really), and have yet to have someone whipping out the phone and telling me my information was wrong.  Sure, I do occasionally get a fact wrong.  But that culture hasn't pervaded the sanctuary yet.  The assumption of both Lund and Wells is that people are wanting something different out of their sermon than the model we've been using for hundreds of years.  I think that they're right for the percentage of the culture that is digital natives, but the question is when has an individual church reached that point?  My church, I'm feeling, is not there yet.  People generally seem to like the longer sermons (to a point), and when the sermons are shorter and there are more other elements in the service, I get more complaints.  So my reality is not matching with what the new media guys are suggesting. Of course, and here's the rub: maybe the people who want something different are not coming, and our adherence to old forms is limiting growth.  Is it?  Quite possibly.

And so, with those limitations & expectations  in mind, next I will address what I think the evolving model could looks like, and what I think is currently possible in a small, low-tech church.

An interesting conversation has been going on in the UU blogosphere starting with Scott Wells at Boy in the Bands, then with Dan Harper at Yet Another Unitarian Universalist, and finally Phil Lund at Phil's Little Blog on the Prairie.  All three are UU ministers--Scott Wells works for the Sunlight Foundation; Dan Harper is the Associate Minister for Religious Education at the UU Church of Palo Alto; Phil Lund is on staff at the Prairie Star District of the UUA. 

Diving in--the original notion that Scott Wells posted is that in a digital age, the sermon is too long.  He writes, "It made sense in a education- and resource-poor (and frankly, entertainment-poor) age, but if I held forth for twenty minutes or more every Sunday, I expect to be regularly challenged (perhaps mentally, and in an unspoken way) by people who would Google for facts during my oratory."  Phil Lund echoes this: "Thing one: settling into a cozy pew for an hour or so to listen to a ripping good sermon may once have been considered a relatively inexpensive way to be entertained on a Sunday morning, but nowadays if I want to listen to someone talk about something on Sunday (or any day), all I need to do is logon to the interwebs and visit TED.com…for free."

Scott Wells suggests a different model: "It might make sense for a minister to preach briefly — tightly, eloquently, perhaps around a single point — to the “live congregation” and have it spelled out later in another way. Not print necessarily, but perhaps a podcast or video, or forgoing these perhaps a live event more in common with an interview or discussion than fighting with hymns and prayers for attention."  Dan Harper spells out some concrete steps he's proposing in response: posting a reading on a sermon blog on Thursday; on Sunday before worship post the text of the sermon, along with links; give a hashtag for twitter conversation for during and after worship; stream the worship service live; continue conversation after on the blog.  Phil Lund shares these thoughts and suggests turning the sermon inside-out, a process he promises to describe soon in an upcoming post.

That's all by way of background.  I'll post my response soon, as well.

*amended 8:31pm 7/8/11 to reflect Harper's title correctly.  Sorry!

Just FYI, the UUA is in the process of designing a UU app.  A couple of weeks ago they put out a page where you can submit ideas.  As is often the case, however, I can't find it easily by searching for it through the UUA's page.  Problem number one is that "phone" and "app" are too common.  "Submit ideas for mobile phone app" doesn't turn it up, either.  Fortunately, I have found it for you.  It's at http://www.uua.org/about/184350.shtml. 

But, if you can't wait to see what the UUA will turn out, the Church of the Larger Fellowship just put out a very nice app, "Quest for Meaning."  The Android version is available; the iPhone version may still be "coming soon."  It was free when I downloaded it during GA, and features four options -- reading joys and sorrows, posting a joy or sorrow, lighting a chalice (along with a reading), and podcasts.  It's a nifty little thing.  I found it hard to located.  In my apps store, I searched under "Quest" and then under "Unitarian" and then finally found it by searching for either "Quest Unitarian" or "Quest Church of the Larger Fellowship" -- I can't remember which. 

This morning's plenary sessions at the UUA General Assembly dealt with several housekeeping bylaw changes (some of which will have to be voted on at next year's "Justice GA"), and the Actions of Immediate Witness.  Four AIMs were proposed, and three passed.  Interestingly, the one that didn't pass was on opposing the war in Afghanistan.  Arguments against ranged from that it's not an immediate issue (since it's been going on so long) to that it instructs us to instruct the people of Afghanistan in how to run their country, which is inappropriate.  It's significant to note that a similar AIM was rejected last year at the General Assembly.  But both of these also follow on the heels of the 2010 Statement of Conscience on Creating Peace.  AIMs have to pass by a 2/3 majority.  The AIM on the war was so close that our moderator had to call for the vote three times before it was clear that it didn't pass.  Those we did pass were on supporting supermarket workers in California, protesting the Peter King hearings on "Muslim radicalization," and opposing the "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision. One of those was by a pretty close margin. 

Later in the day, after I had already left, the General Assembly passed some interesting Responsive Resolutions.  Apparently I am urged to go learn Spanish, as are you.  Let's do that.  Seriously.  I'm sure I can take classes at JCC.  And next year at GA there will be no AIMs.  I think this might be something we're sorry about later, but hopefully not.  And then the following year and thereafter we're limited to 3 AIMs per year, rather than six, for the delegates to vote on.  What worries me about that is that I think the way we decide which ones go before the delegates are which ones get the most signatures, which may just mean that the ones proposed by the most efficient or persistent people, not really the most popular, are what we'll end up seeing.  This year, for example, I signed a petition for an AIM titled "Solidarity" that was on workers and unions, but it didn't apparently get enough signatures for us to see it in the plenary.  Was this because not enough delegates were interested in the subject, or because the person gathering signatures wasn't persistent enough?  I may never know.  So the AIM process is definitely problematic to begin with.  Hopefully the changes made today made it better, not worse.  I know others felt like the AIMs were not researched enough, and sometimes poorly written. But I don't see how lowering the number we can vote on improves that necessarily.  Nobody, I think, is reading the whole proposed AIM before signing the petition. 


Well, that's it for GA for this year.  I've left Charlotte.  Now we'll just have to see if I can learn enough Spanish plus do everything else we're urged to do to make ourselves ready for Phoenix next year.  It's a tall order, I think.  I'm already trying to figure out what will happen to my child in GA childcare if I'm arrested.  I think they add on an additional charge for every 5 minutes you're late picking up...  Meanwhile, send me the links to everything we're supposed to be doing to ready ourselves.  No, this isn't cynicism, I really do take this seriously, but let's also remember that there are people sometimes new to our movement and sometimes of limited means who join us at GA, and not be too high in our demands, too, okay?

As a Meadville Lombard Theological School alum, one of the regular GA events I attend is the Meadville Lombard alumni dinner.  After everything Meadville Lombard has been through this year, I wasn't sure what the mood would be of the room this year.  Often the event is a mixture of school pride, nostalgia as we hear 25 years and 50 years in the ministry speakers, and silliness as we hassle the president or scribe and bark (literally--it's a long story) our approval for various statements or motions. 

This year, after Meadville Lombard has sold its historic building and cancelled the plans to join with Andover Newton in forming a new theological university, and has now leased space in the Chicago loop area (location still mostly undisclosed, but alums are in the know now).  It's been such a whirlwind year that when you go to www.meadville.edu, you land now on their news page -- that's what they're putting first on the web, because it's so significant.  Compare that to the front page of Starr King's at www.sksm.edu -- you get the picture.

So what was the atmosphere?  We're mourning the loss of 5701 S. Woodlawn -- the Curtis Room, the Stairwell, the Stacks.  But beyond that, there's a cautious optimism.  I think the alumni are largely glad not to be worried about losing identity in this institution with Andover Newton, and glad for Meadville Lombard to be going it alone and to be self-sufficient.  We're also glad that there's now, finally, an answer to the question of where Meadville Lombard's physical home will be, and that it will be in Chicago.  Our reservations are mostly around things that have already been in place for a while -- the touch point program and the loss of the strong relationship to the University of Chicago that was there in days past.  The touch point program is a big change from the residential program most of us went through, but it's been going on a couple of years, and the students (as well as faculty and supporters) are speaking of it as a strong program that's meeting all their needs and doing what it needs to do. 

I was cautiously optimistic heading in.  I come out of the Meadville Lombard annual event much more hopeful and with a lighter heart. 

President Lee Barker invited us as alumni to come by 5701 this fall and say goodbye to the building.  I'm thinking I want to take him up on that.  It's only a three hour drive from Jackson to Chicago, so it would be easy to make it a day trip or an overnight trip.  They have a very nice blog for sharing memories of our home in Hyde Park, but I think I need to make the pilgrimage. 

There were only a couple of workshops on social media this year at General Assembly, and one of them was at the same time as another big lecture I wanted to attend the other day, so I happily grabbed the one today that was sandwiched between the plenary sections.  It was led by four ministers who talked about how they use social media.  What was really nice was that they all saw use of social media as a valid piece of ministry -- not just something they do on the side -- and they also talked about how it shows the congregation a different side of the minister, through seeing snarky blog posts or goofy cat videos or exposure to the different interests and social groups a minister interacts with.  And they all seemed to think this was largely positive for congregations to see this side of ministers.  As someone who has friended congregation members on Facebook, I have to agree.  My facebook friends see more of me than they would otherwise, and that's largely good.  (Although an amusing question came up about seeing the minister in online dating communities -- a question that's pretty touchy, considering the topics of discussion at UUMA these days.  For more on that, see my last few blog posts.) 

One fun thing about this workshop was seeing other people I know from social media and seeing them interact with each other, and then having our workshop itself interact with social media when one of the presenters took a picture of the crowd and posted it to Facebook.  The picture isn't wide enough to see me, but she tagged me anyway (I'm Facebook friends with 3/4 of the presenters), so if you're on Facebook with me, check it out.  We're all being flaming chalices for her.  (Please be aware that I don't friend UUs from other congregations unless I have a secondary connection with them in some way, like friends or relatives or working together on something where Facebook connection would facilitate things.)

Today the UUA General Assembly had one main issue before them in the short (comparatively) plenary session: to vote on the proposed Statement of Conscience on Ethical Eating.  There were two main debates that were held about the SOC.  The first was about the elephant in the UUA room: classism.  The proposal put before us in plenary included two lines that urged us to tell food sellers and producers that we will buy and pay more for ethically produced food.  One fellow from my own economically devastated state of Michigan urged people to vote against the SOC because of this.  He shared with the gathered delegates that while he wishes he could pay more for food to follow ethical eating guidelines, he's on food stamps.  As another person put it, it's all about the math. 

The second issue was around a sentence that says, "Minimally processed plant-based diets are healthier diets."  The complaint was that this speaks for everyone, and calls on all UUs to be vegetarian.  We heard from people saying that it's simply not true that vegetarian diets are better for everyone -- one woman spoke of her partner, a previously committed vegetarian, who was forced to add meat to her diet to survive due to increasing food allergies and other health issues.  Another person said he just didn't believe that vegetarianism wasn't always the most healthy option for everyone.  One person argued that the focus of the sentence was on the issue of processed foods.  Yet another argued that the sentence talked about plant-based diets not vegetarianism, and that meat can be included in a plant-based diet.  An amendment to strike this sentence was proposed, and struck down. 

Later, we went back to those lines about money, and an amendment was made to strike them, and was passed with no argument. 

Unlike Actions of Immediate Witness, which are proposed at General Assemblies and voted on at the same one, the Statements of Conscience we pass are much longer and thoughtful procedures.  Ethical Eating started as a study-action issue for congregations, and then out of that process comes the statement of conscience.  That this is now a statement of conscience makes it an important document for our faith, and UUs might be interested to read it and consider what it asks of us as individuals and congregations.

Okay, so I've now figured out what was unclear to me before.  Here's what we've voted in that is now in our "Standards of Professional Practice" (our unenforced part of the document, or "best practices):

G. Personal or Romantic Relationships
1. A minister of a congregation, or a community minister affiliated with a congregation, who engages in personal friendship or pursues a romantic attraction with a member or participant of that congregation, or whose family members or existing friends join or participate in that congregation, must take into account the following considerations:
 a. Such relationships will change the dynamics of the congregation as well as of the ministry, potentially in negative ways that may persist beyond that minister’s tenure.
 b. Members of the congregation who have special relationships with the minister must often refrain from positions of visible leadership or systemic influence for which they might otherwise be eligible.
c. It may be advisable for a potential romantic partner to refrain from visible leadership or systemic influence for which they might otherwise be eligible in the congregation, agency or enterprise, at least until the nature of the relationship with the minister is clearly established and can be made public.
 2. Ministers who pursue such relationships should seek and heed the advice of colleagues as to how the conduct of that relationship may affect their ministries and their congregations.
 3. It is unfair and destructive to congregations for the minister to ask them publicly to accept a succession of several romantic partners, whether or not these partners have been previously connected to the congregation.
4. Community ministers should be guided additionally by the expectations of the agencies or enterprises where they work, and by the standards of professional organizations to which they may belong, regarding the establishment of personal friendships or romantic relationships with those they serve.
 5. In all cases, ministers must be careful not to take advantage of those they serve, or damage the integrity of the congregation, agency or enterprise in which they serve.

And here's the stronger language under review (with the agreement that the final language would avoid he/she language in preference to the use of "they" as a non-gendered third person single pronoun.  The justice advocate in me agrees.  The grammarian still has problems with the singular use of "they" and would prefer other work-arounds such as consistent use of a full noun or pluralizing of the entire sentence):

1. A minister who initiates or responds to sexual contact, sexualized behavior, or a sexual relationship with any person he/she serves or serves with professionally must take into account that such relationships will change the dynamics of the congregation/work site as well as of the ministry, potentially in negative ways that may persist beyond that minister’s tenure.
2. A minister who initiates or responds to sexual contact, sexualized behavior, or a sexual relationship with any person he/she serves or serves with professionally agrees to:
 a. Either the minister or the other person will leave the congregation/site of ministry for 6 months before the relationship can be pursued
 b. Fully disclose to the potential romantic partner the implications for that person of a relationship with the minister, including the change that the person could lose his/her congregation or work site regardless of the success of the relationship.
 c. Fully disclose such decision to the chapter Good Officer of the UUMA.
d. Fully disclose such decision to the congregation/work site if at the end of 6 months the relationship is pursued
 3. It is unfair and destructive to congregations for the minister to ask them publicly to accept a succession of several romantic partners, whether or not these partners have been previously connected to the congregation.
4. Community ministers are guided additionally by the expectations of the agencies or enterprises where they work, and by the standards of professional organizations to which they may belong, regarding the establishment of sexual contact, sexualized behavior, or a sexual relationship with any person served professionally.
5. In all cases, ministers must be careful not to take advantage of those they serve, or damage the integrity of the congregation, agency or enterprise in which they serve.

It may also be under review for the "Code of Professional Conduct" (the enforceable part of our document) to read: "I will not engage in sexual contact, sexualized behavior, or a sexual relationship with any person I serve professionally."  That piece of it was still confusing.  We didn't vote on this, I believe, but it seems like adding this is the goal that we're still working towards.

At any rate, what is clearly the difference between what was voted in and what is under review is that what was voted in has much more to do with the role of the minister's partner in 1.a-1.c., and the review version is very explicitly laying out steps that should be followed if a minister is to date a member of the congregation in 2.a.-2.d.  While we'll take this year to review it, I think the proposed version is very good, and these steps of contacting good offices, ending the pastoral relationship, and disclosing to the congregation, are important and necessary.  People might argue over the six month period, I suppose. And I can certainly see that if one was dealing with a very new member to the congregation that this might be excessive, but this is also "best practices" and, as such, in consultation with good offices, it seems that sort of case-by-case situation could be negotiated. 

Special thanks to James Kubal-Komoto whose comment on my last post prompted me to go back and read through it all to understand it.  Balancing my laptop on my knee and trying to see where the differences in the two versions were proved not to be the most effective way for me to do business.  Now that I can look side-by-side, the situation is more clear.  That one sentence deal in the whole explanation threw me off and was, I think, unnecessarily confusing, but perhaps only to me. 

Today I dropped my daughter off at the UU Kids Camp for the first time.  She had a good day; they took a field trip to the science museum.  She's in the camp for three days, and it's field trips each day.  I confess to a little disappointment around this.  I've been so longing for her to have a UU camp experience.  (See this article from a UU World blog on more about UU kids camps.)  It seems like this great opportunity at General Assembly to have a camp that's integrated around UU principles and heritage and to tie it to our values.  What is in fact the case is they contract the kids camp job out to a local child care provider to run.  I suppose this is not the primary goal of GA, to provide UU experiences for children, but it's a wasted opportunity, if you ask me.  All the same, I hope to continue doing this bringing my daughter to GA and putting her in the camp, hoping that I'll have additional opportunities to expose her to the larger world of UUism beyond the local congregation.  She went with me to the Banner Parade last night and will walk the exhibit hall later in the week.  We watched a bit of the Service of the Living Tradition together tonight.  So those pieces of UUism will still sink in, perhaps.  And if it doesn't, well, at least the kids camp was fun, eh?

After dropping the girl off at camp, it was a workshops day all day today.  In the past, the days have been a mixture of plenary and workshops.  This year plenaries are all stacked into the weekend, with the workshops packed into Thursday and Friday.  I see the logic in this model, but I'm not enjoying it.  It makes for a long day if the two aren't mixed. 

One workshop I went to today was the first part of a two-part series by Galen Guengerich on "Church of the New Millennium: Formula for Failure."  I'll probably miss part two, because it's in the same slot as Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.  Guengerich structured his remarks around an imagined future in which his daughter's grandchild is writing a thesis about why Unitarian Universalism failed and disappeared.  He suggests that she would write that it's because we were "spiritual but not religious." 

I'm reminded of when I was asked while interviewing for my current ministry whether I was "spiritual or religious."  "Religious," was my response.  I love the institution of Unitarian Universalism.  That's what's so wonderful about being at General Assembly -- it's an embodied representation of this great thing that is Unitarian Universalism that I love.  I love the moment the gavel is pounded during the opening plenary and the General Assembly is declared to be in session.  I love the swirling frenzied excitement of the banner parade.  I love running into colleagues between sessions and catching up or exchanging hugs.  I love shopping around the exhibit hall.  I love my mind and heart being stretched in program and worship.  Heck, I even love discussions about our bylaws.

Guengerich expanded on what he meant by religious and spiritual, but you need to go hear it for yourself when it's available, as I'm sure it will be.

Today concluded with the Service of the Living Tradition, in which ministers and religious educators are honored for their service.  Ministers who have passed are listed in the "roll call," and ministers receive preliminary and final fellowship, and are acknowledged when they retire.  Similar milestones for religious educators are marked.  I needed to go back to the hotel so I could be around my little one for one evening, since my next two are booked, and I needed to hear how kids camp went, so I opted to watch the service on line.  It was clear from the service itself and from the comments of my colleagues on Facebook as well that this was the best service in years.  The feed went in and out a bit (probably the hotel connection), but the sermon was awesomely good.  Everybody seems to love that this year instead of admonishing people not to cheer and clap, this year it was encouraged.  Every bit of the service was just right on.  If you want to know what a Service of the Living Tradition is and what it means, watch this one.  I can't remember a better one, including those in which I got preliminary and final fellowship (one of which was pretty darn good, one of which was awful, and I won't say which here on the blog).  This was it.  Seriously.  This was religion.

Today was "Ministry Days" (a misnomer, because it's one day and one evening, really).  The two highlights for me of Ministry Days are the 25/50 worship service and the Ministerial Conference at Berry Street.  The 25/50 worship service features a speaker from that group of ministers who have been in the ministry 25 years, and also one from that group who have been in the ministry 50 years.  It's always a delight to hear their stories of their experiences and how things have changed and yet been the same.  We have a similar thing at the Meadville Lombard Theological School alumni dinner, which will be later in the week.  Can you imagine about 800 Unitarian Universalism ministers singing "Turn the World Around"?  (We were some fewer than that, I think, but I can't remember the number.  The total number of UU ministers is now in the 1700s.)

The Berry Street lecture is, we were informed, the oldest running lecture in the United States.  It was started by William Ellery Channing in 1820.  I can't explain the exact words shared of what the purpose of the Berry Street lecture is, but my understanding is that the person giving it is called to bring a new understanding around an issue of their choice to the UU ministers assembled.  For example, Mark Morrison-Reed in 2000 talked about how we leave congregations.  His discussion was fresh and informative, and I know congregations that have used his Berry Street words as study when their minister is leaving.  Today the Rev Dr. Deborah J. Pope-Lance took us to task on an issue that's been plaguing our ministry for decades--clergy misconduct.  It was incredibly timely.  The UUMA has been wrestling with what language to have in their code of conduct for, well, a very long time.  We had voted in some new language this morning, in fact, with an immediate amendment of stronger language following right on its heels.  The tension is our ministry is between those who believe it is always wrong for a minister to get involved with a member of his or her congregation, and those who say that if done carefully and openly, ministers can and have built successful marriages with members of their congregations, and for single ministers in isolated locations, it's unreasonable for them not to be able to pursue romantic relationships within their congregation.  Pope-Lance made it very clear that we need to take a hard line here.  And in an increasing number of states in the U.S. it's already illegal for a minister to get sexually involved with a congregation member.

The votes this morning that we took were very confusing--it seemed like we voted to put certain language into place and then voted to study that exact same language for a year.  I'm still sorting that out.  But whichever it is, what seems to be in place for UU ministers starting now or soon is a best practices recommendation (not enforceable) that says that before ministers get sexually involved with someone in the congregation, that person must leave the congregation, or the minister must leave the congregation, for a period of six months.  The minister must inform the UUMA Good Offices person.  And then after six months, the relationship can be pursued, but the congregation must also be informed.  There are a lot of further details, but that's the heart of it.  And there's less detailed language in the enforceable part of our code, but that's where, I think, we're still also working on strengthening up the language. 

I got into Charlotte, NC yesterday afternoon for the 50th annual UUA General Assembly, which begins tomorrow evening.  Before GA begins, however, there are "Ministry Days," and before Ministry Days this year there is Chapter Leader Training, which began yesterday evening and continued through the day today.  As Heartland Chapter President, and still feeling my way around the job, it was a welcome opportunity to hear what other chapters were doing well and where we all were struggling -- mostly around membership questions, welcoming, and technology.  It's become clear to me that something we need is a Chapter Connections/Technology officer in the Heartland.  Luckily, I seem to have found someone for the job, and it's not me.  Members of our chapter will not be surprised at the wonderful techie colleague who has indicated her willingness to step forward.

Don Southworth, the UUMA Director, started us off in worship today at Chapter Leader Training by talking about those moments when we feel really blessed to be able to do the work we do.  It was a feeling echoed in our opening worship for Ministry Days when our Charlotte Colleagues reminded us how blessed we are in this work.  And, yes, when we get together at this time of year we like to tell stories of how busy we were and how tired we are.  But it's an amazing gift to get to do this work.  And what a joy, really, to be together here with all these wonderful UUs engaged in the work of faith and love and justice.

Today was lobbying day with the HRC Clergy Call.  We started out with a little lobby training, then each state was assigned an HRC staff person.  We all went to the press conference, and then off to the lobbying visits with our staffer. 

The press conference was at a beautiful spot with the Capitol in the background.  It was, unfortunately, extremely hot and sunny.  The press conference offered no shade, and few of us had worn hats.  Only one seemed to have brought sunscreen, but as she was a UU she offered me some.  (I'm sure she would have happily offered to any denomination, but it was a small tube, so I was grateful to get some.)  We put up umbrellas, but were told it would ruin the pictures.  Since most of the cameras were pointed at the speakers, and we were not behind the speakers but seated in front of them, I opted after a while to go back into the shade.  Clergy can be long-winded at these sorts of things, after all.

Once I was happily back in the shade, I was much more attentive.  And they were wonderful speakers.    The press conference started off with a Buddhist invocation from the Hawaii delegation.  Joe Solmonese of the HRC spoke.  Several heads of various denominations spoke, as well.  Unfortunately UUA President Peter Morales was unable to attend.  He had flown out the day before and had dinner with the UU group gathered there at the UUA Washington Advocacy Office, but he got sick somehow and was unable to be with us for the press conference.  His piece was ably picked up by Taquiena Boston, Director of Multicultural Growth and Witness.

After the press conference ended, my HRC staffer, Tim Mahoney, came to find me.   There were supposed to be three of us lobbying for Michigan, but one UU colleague had things come up and was unable to make it.  The second Michigan person, a non-UU from the Detroit area, had checked into Clergy Call the previous day, but never showed up for the lobbying.  So Tim cancelled the visits with their congressmen, and he and I went to visit Senator Levin, Senator Stabenow, and Congressman Walberg, after a lunch in the cafe of one of the Senate buildings.

Two years ago when I went to the HRC Clergy Call I was surprised to learn that you usually don't get to meet with your representatives.  This year I was prepared for that.  Our schedule said that we would see staffers at my senators' offices, and perhaps meet with Rep. Walberg if his schedule permitted.  It was a very busy day on Capitol Hill, so we didn't see Rep. Walberg, either. 

It was a very friendly visit at Sen. Levin's office with a staff person who was extremely knowledgeable on LGBT issues.  Sen. Levin is co-sponsoring ENDA, one of the pieces of legislation we were there to talk about, as is Sen. Stabenow.  Sen. Stabenow's legislative aide who met with us was very courteous and asked good questions, and that was also a good meeting.  After those two meetings, we dropped off packets at three other congressmen's offices on our way to see Rep. Walberg's staff.  At Walberg's office I stressed the anti-bullying legislation that we were there to talk about.  The staff member agreed that certainly no child ever deserved to be bullied, and so I talked about how children of LGBT parents, children who are LGBT, and children who are perceived to be LGBT are particular targets of bullying.  I talked about how no matter how one felt about LGBT issues, nobody could believe those children deserved violence against them for what they were, or what they were perceived to be.  And I talked about the high suicide rate of LGBT youth, as a direct result of the years of discrimination they face.  It was a cordial meeting where we talked about values and the importance of protecting our children. 

I have to brag a little and say that after each meeting Tim Mahoney, who was wonderful and helpful, told me that I did a great job and hit all the points that we were hoping for out of the event.  And I am thankful for all the people who gave me their stories to take with me to Capitol Hill.  I shared those stories with the staff members I visited with, and stressed their importance, that these letters represent real people in Michigan with stories about how things affect them.

So, after that I skipped the HRC Closing Reception back at their offices, an opted for one cab ride rather than two, and headed back to where I'm staying with a Methodist colleague.  I've got sore feet, but high hopes. 

Opening invocation from the Hawaii delegation.
 Taqueina Boston speaking for the UUs.  You can just see the tip of her head there.
Me.

Right now I'm in Washington, D.C. for the 3rd biannual HRC Clergy Call for Justice and Equality.  There were many wonderful moments today worth talking about, but I want to tell you about some recent poll's results.  HRC just commissioned a new poll to study religious responses to GLBT issues.  The amazing and wonderful results are that people of faith overwhelmingly -- yes, overwhelmingly -- are now in support of LGBT justice issues. I know this may seem hard to believe.  The media keeps showing us the voices of hate and telling us that's the faith perspective.  But the truth is it's not. 

Some specifics:

When asked "Do you favor protecting gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people from discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations?" 70% of all people said yes, and 68% of Christians said yes.

85% of people say their faith leads them to believe in equality for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people.

76% of all people and 74% of Christians favor a law to protect gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people or the children of GLBT people against bullying and harassment. 

People also think that when faith leaders condemn GLBT people it does more harm than good. 

When the Christian numbers are broken down, the Catholics are most in support of these things (both practicing and non-practicing), but even the non-denominational Christians, which includes evangelicals, are in favor of these GLBT justice issues. 

These are wonderful results.  Now if we can only get our politicians to hear them tomorrow during our lobbying time.

Just a quick note here to say that the book is now available on Amazon.  And, no, there aren't any used copies yet!  It's cheaper to go through CreateSpace, as described in the last post, and use the coupon.  I get a larger amount, even with the coupon, than I do through Amazon, so it's to my benefit as well.  But if you're determined to use Amazon, if you follow this link, my church gets a percentage through their Amazon Associates account.  And it is a little thrill to see it available through Amazon.  It makes it just a little more real, although I've yet to see the final project in physical form -- my proof has arrived, but I'm out of town.  More on that later.

My new book, An Extremist for Love & Justice, is now available!  It'll be up on Amazon in a day or two, and I'll link to it then, but it's better for me if you go through the publisher (CreateSpace, Amazon's self-publishing arm): https://www.createspace.com/3593257.  To encourage such, here's a coupon code for $2.00 off -- Q2MVMHDY.

I thought some readers might be curious about the self-publishing process, so I'll write a bit about it here.

Self-publishing has been an interesting process.  I've learned a lot by doing it, one of which is how many typos I make, and another of which is that it always pays to document your sources while you're writing rather than having to go back later and look them all up again.  Being consistent about MLA or Chicago style doesn't hurt, as well. I spent more time straightening out my footnotes than I could possibly imagine.  They're still not perfect, which bugs me, but eventually I just had to move on.

As for self-publishers, I looked into various self-publishing options, including iUniverse, Outskirts, XLibris, Lulu, and CreateSpace.  I heard good things from colleagues about both CreateSpace and Lulu, so those are the ones I looked into more--also they were two of four that were very responsive to providing information to me, iUniverse and XLibris being the others.  Lulu seemed like a good option that I'll consider in the future.  They're one extreme of the options--you provide your own book in PDF form with all the layout done, including page numbers, table of contents, fleurons, and the works. You also have to provide your cover as a completed PDF file with the correct spine width, and bleed margin and so forth.  My graphics capabilities are pretty weak, but they have some templates you can play with, and I created something that I think was every bit as good as what I ended up getting.  They'll give you a free ISBN, you upload your files, and you're basically done.  All that is free.  They make a larger percentage off of each book that's printed, but there are fewer up-front costs.  But you don't get much for that -- the book is available through Lulu, but to make it available elsewhere there are additional fees (although still smaller than other publishers).  Honestly, now that I've gone the other route and seen it all, I can't remember what turned me off of the idea of doing it through Lulu.  I know I wanted the comfort of having it be formatted for me, and felt that a less-do-it-myself approach would yield a more professional result.

Once I ruled out Lulu, I ended up going with CreateSpace, because when I added in what I wanted, all of the others seemed pretty equivalent, and I had a colleague who had a good experience with CreateSpace, and since they're connected to Amazon, I felt that would make things smoother.  I wanted something that would do the interior and cover layout, would provide an ISBN, and which would make it available on Amazon and other booksellers, particularly Borders and Barnes and Noble.  To get all those pieces it seemed to work out to around $500, no matter which publisher I went with.  (For example, iUniverse was $599, but would've included the Kindle file; xLibris was $449 but had extremely limited templates.)  So CreateSpace was as good a pick as any, to my mind.  For $499 they take your file and format it according to one of several templates.  The templates have less flexibility than I would like, but they worked with me to find a reasonable compromise.  Then they took my picture and words and created a cover according to one of several templates again.  They have templates for the front matter of the book (title page, etc.), as well to choose from, and a list of several different fleurons and fonts for the cover and interior.  I thought CreateSpace would give more flexibility here than Lulu, but in the end it was about the same as the one I had created myself on Lulu.  CreateSpace did throw in their distribution services, so it can be available through just about any bookstore in the country to order.  Lulu had the disadvantage of not doing Kindle format, and since I have a new Kindle, I thought I would like to have it in that form.  Unfortunately, the Kindle file is not part of the CreateSpace package.  It's something I can add on or do myself, so I'll probably look into doing that this summer and make it available on Kindle. 

The CreateSpace process took more time than I thought it would after uploading the files in early April to today when I could finally approve the physical proof (and that's without actually getting my proof copy in the mail yet--I approved it sight unseen).  There were several steps along the way where I was unclear what would handle next and how long it would take.  But in the end they were very responsive to my calls, and I'm happy with the final result.  I would recommend them for a first-time self-publisher, based on my experience so far.

My colleague Tony Lorenzen recently wrote a blog post on James Luther Adams' "Five Smooth Stones."  As a refresher, even though I know many of you can rattle them off the top of your head, James Luther Adams was a Unitarian and UU theologian and professor at Meadville Lombard Theological School.  He wrote an essay on the five smooth stones of religious liberalism.  The "smooth stones" metaphor comes from the story of David & Goliath, wherein David used 5 smooth stones in his slingshot and killed the mighty Goliath.  JLA's Smooth Stones are:

• "Religious liberalism depends on the principle that 'revelation' is continuous."
• "All relations between persons ought ideally to rest on mutual, free consent and not on coercion."
• "Religious liberalism affirms the moral obligation to direct one's effort toward the establishment of a just and loving community. It is this which makes the role of the prophet central and indispensable in liberalism."
• "[W]e deny the immaculate conception of virtue and affirm the necessity of social incarnation." 
• "[L]iberalism holds that the resources (divine and human) that are available for the achievement of meaningful change justify an attitude of ultimate optimism."

Tony neatly sums these up in his blog post with one word each.  My summary is a bit longer.

The first smooth stone tells us that there is no one religious truth that has already been told and that is handed down in one particular sacred text.  Revelation can happen at any time, and is still happening.  The second talks about democratic principles and freedom -- particularly important as JLA wrote this in response to experiencing the rise of fascism in Europe.  The third tells us that we have a prophetic faith and we are all prophets -- we must all be voices for the social good, for the betterment of society.  Fourth, good is created by us here and now, not something that is done just by God.  The third and fourth stones are very linked.  And lastly, that we have the resources to affect change, and so therefore we should have hope. 

I refer to the five smooth stones often and had actually used the 5 smooth stones in the sermon that I had already written that I'll be preaching this Sunday.  I'd been thinking on the 5 smooth stones the past couple of weeks for no particular reason except that I've been working on our program for Ohio River Group next year on "The Future of Liberalism," and one of our reading items might be the 5 Smooth Stones.  This got me thinking--If I were writing the 5 Smooth Stones now, what would the Smooth Stones be?

I don't have my answer yet, except that Tony is exactly right when he says what's missing from the five smooth stones is love.  That would be my first smooth stone -- a radical universal love that embraces all people.  I love all of JLA's smooth stones, and think they're all vital now, but maybe I would combine the third and fourth to make that space for love and call it a day.  But there may be something I'm not thinking about right now that is more vital for us to talk about in what distinguishes liberal religion.  I'm still thinking on it.

So I'm still working on my five smooth stones.  Meanwhile, what are yours?

The merger of the Unitarian and the Universalist denominations took place 50 years ago -- the official date was May 15, 1961.  So, of course, I started thinking about my experiences at the merger.  But, wait!  I wasn't born yet!

That's right, one of the neat things that we can celebrate is that there are generations now of people who are Unitarian Universalists from childhood on, some even with ten years or more in the ministry, who were raised in, influenced by, and in turn influenced themselves this new association that was created 50 years ago.

Many argued then that without this merger, Universalism would die.  I look around me here, and I really believe that.  At the time of merger, there were three little rural Universalist churches between ten and fifteen miles from Jackson.  My church, a small rural Universalist church, joined the new UUA, and it's still going strong.  The Universalist church in Horton, MI did not join the UUA, but eventually became Congregationalist.  There's a church and a congregation thriving there, but no Universalist church.  The Concord, Michigan church, the furthest from Jackson at 14 miles, floundered for a while and then went out of existence.  They still have special programs there every year, such as a Christmas concert or service, but there is no longer a worshipping Universalist body.  There is no church there, even though there's a church building there. 

Without the merger, we might have died.  With it, we have generations of Unitarian Universalists to spread our saving message -- our Universalist message of love and acceptance.  All that, and Unitarianism, too.  What a deal we got.  Happy Birthday, UUA!

Sunday night as I was watching television after a long day, I, like much of the nation, heard that there was going to be an upcoming announcement from President Obama.  An unplanned late-Sunday-evening announcement from the President is clearly unusual.  My immediate thought was that something horrible had happened--horrible, that is, for citizens of the United States and its military.  So it was with some joy and relief that I learned that instead of our soldiers or civilians being dead, it was Osama bin Laden.  I admit to some immediate partisan joy that this had happened under this particular president's watch.  And I shared in some joking about the timing of the president interrupting Celebrity Apprentice.  I admit to some joy at him being removed from a position of continued threat, and some relief that this was news of success for our country. 

These are my first reactions, my gut reactions.  They do not necessarily represent my best reactions or religious reactions, and that's the point that I want to make today.  I understand why people want to go out and be with other people in the streets and celebrate.  It is a natural reaction after a long period of cultural grief that we pin on this man, Osama bin Laden. 

But at the same time I felt immediate sorrow that this hunt for Osama bin Laden, our figurehead for the 9/11 terrorist attacks, had ended with a killing.  I wished immediately that we had captured this man alive rather than taking another life.  I am not a pacifist, although I do believe that war always represents a failure, and I am also against the death penalty.  To me, this killing, although it was done in a combat situation, it seems, represented a failure on our part to some degree, as well as, of course, the enormous political success of having finally captured this man our government and military was looking for for so long.  I don't say "failure" to blame the military--I think it was a failure on Osama bin Laden's part that led to this outcome, for the most part.  He chose a path of hatred and violence, and I grieve that he chose this path up until the end.  But every death that ends in violence is also to some extent a failure on the parts of everyone involved, including us, the American people. 

I think our best reaction, as a people, is not to celebrate, but to mourn.  A quote from Martin Luther King, Jr. that's been making the rounds illustrates the sentiment:

Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence and toughness multiples toughness in a descending spiral of destruction.

(Note that many of the versions being shared have a sentence tacked on the beginning that was not King's, but the rest of the statement--all of that quoted above--was his.  Jessica Dovey, Facebook user and English teacher apparently wrote the now oft-quoted sentence, "I will mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy.")  One of the quickest ways we justify rejoicing at Osama bin Laden's death is by dehumanizing him, by making him pure evil, almost the devil himself.  That's the response I heard from friends and acquaintances as the discussion launched from one Facebook friend's post to another: "He was evil."  Once we make him evil, he becomes less than human, and we can respond with pure hate and pure rejoicing at his death. 

There have been a lot of good articles about the Christian response to Osama bin Laden's death.  A Vatican spokesperson said, "In the face of a man's death, a Christian never rejoices, but reflects on the serious responsibilities of each person before God and before men, and hopes and works so that every event may be the occasion for the further growth of peace and not of hatred."

Emotions are high about this.  When my colleague James Ford used the word "glad," he got some apparently heated responses including one suggesting he could no longer teach the Buddhadharma.  On the other hand, I've seen some pretty heated responses to some friends suggesting that gladness is the wrong approach.  We're quick to chastise each other on both sides.  I can't condemn anyone for a feeling of gladness--I experienced that same lifting of spirit myself, instinctively.  (And it appears Ford wasn't talking about gladness at death--read his own words for an explanation.)  What I can come back to is to say that feeling gladness at the death of Osama bin Laden is not my best self, nor my religious self.  It does not reflect my values nor my theology.

What is the Unitarian Universalist response to this man's death?  We have no set creed, but freedom of religion, so of course there is no one set response.   But in our religious tradition we also know that we believe people are not inherently evil.  Our Universalist heritage reminds us that no one is damned forever.  And so I experience sorrow that we were not able to find the good in Osama bin Laden and that he chose a path of violence and death, and that we followed, chasing him on that path, and being on it ourselves.  Our principles, while not a creed, also serve as a touchstone in times like this.  The remind us of the inherent worth and dignity of every human being--every single one.  So at times like this, when it is easy to fill up with hatred, I remind myself of the inherent worth and dignity of anyone that I might want to call "enemy."  I look, too, to the principle that we strive for justice, equity, and compassion in human relations.  There are many quick to say that Osama bin Laden's death is "justice served."  Perhaps it is -- although, I think justice is better done by a court than by a bullet.  But it is not "compassion served," certainly.  Can we feel compassion for Osama bin Laden, individually or as a people?  What would that look like?  I'm not there yet.  I don't feel compassion for him.  But I think I would be better for trying to.

Recently Meadville Lombard Theological School announced that they are ending negotiations with Andover Newton Theological School to become one combined theological university.  The stated reasons are that the sale of its historic building has left it in a stronger financial position than expected, and that Meadville Lombard and Andover Newton couldn't agree on a governance model.  This announcement would seem to be a good thing for Meadville.

But I think we're still holding our breath out here.  At least I am. 

I remain committed to the institution in many ways.  I see good students go in and good ministers come out.  I see a committed faculty, staff, and board, with a great deal of wisdom and experience among them.  I see an institution that has a very important role in our movement as one of two very different Unitarian Universalist seminaries.  I believe Unitarian Universalist seminaries have an important role in shaping our movement, and in maintaining a strong cohesive sense of our history and tradition among our ministry, even for ministers who don't graduate from a Unitarian Universalist seminary.  I also believe Meadville Lombard, as the home of the only specifically Unitarian Universalist library, has a resource of immense importance to Unitarian Universalism.   

However, my experience of Meadville Lombard has been that while it has continually managed to provide a a solid theological education and turn out good ministers, and while it holds a very important place in our Unitarian Universalist movement, to be a student and/or alum of Meadville Lombard is to go through a constantly-changing whirlwind relationship. 

When I was a student at Meadville Lombard, I entered with one faculty and staff in 1996 and graduated with an almost completely different one in 2001.  To my recollection, the only faculty and staff members who were at Meadville Lombard during my entire five years of seminary were Neil Gerdes, Susan Harlow, and Jon Rice.  (My apologies if I've missed a staff member; I don't think I've missed a faculty one.)  Most of this was because of planned retirements from an institution that had a very stable faculty for quite some time leading up to this.  But during my time there, we said goodbye to Spencer Lavan, John Godbey, Ron Engel, Neil Shadle, Ian Evison and Michelle Bentley from the faculty.  That alone provided for a somewhat disjointed seminary experience, where I went off to internship and returned to a very different institution where, as a student nearing graduation I had a faculty that knew me very little.  But it was a wonderful faculty that came in, too, of Thandeka, John Tolley, David Bumbaugh, Susann Pangerl, and Carol Hepokoski with Bill Murry as the new president & academic dean.

The faculty and staff at Meadville Lombard now is almost an entirely different one from when I left, and I know some students in those ten years between now and then must have felt the same upheaval I felt during my time as they've watched this transition happen.  Not all faculty and staff leavings then or now are happy ones for faculty and students, and this is particularly difficult for the students who have built up relationship with them as advisors and mentors. 

During my time at Meadville Lombard the curriculum changed, as well.  Those of us in process, like myself, finished under the old curriculum requirements where the arts of ministry three-part sequence was the core of the first-year experience, and the new students had a three-part theology core requirement with Thandeka as the cornerstone of their curriculum.  The old in-sequence D.Min. program was retired (I was one of the last two graduates in 2001), and a new returning D.Min. degree was launched.

During my time at Meadville Lombard, Ian Evison came in as the interim president of the institution.  During that time, we were told that Meadville Lombard was in a financial crisis, and that cuts needed to be made.  I remember that the entire budget was pasted on the wall outside his door and that all serious suggestions were entertained.  While at the school, there was a lot of transparency about what was going on, and students were very involved in the discussions, although not always happy with the decisions of the board.  I have no reason to believe that the experience is different for students now, but as an alum the situation is very different, because you're not living the day-to-day life of the institution, and only seeing the published decisions, of course.

Shortly after I graduated, the word out of Meadville Lombard, as I experienced it through press releases and alumni dinners, was that the position was in great financial shape, and that they were looking into building another building that would go along with the main building and help complete some of the original vision of the building (originally, I believe, intended to be a quadrangle, only one side of which was built).  This seemed unbelievable from an institution that had been on such shaky ground so recently.  Indeed, this never manifested.

Not long afterward, the plan emerged to sell the main building at 5701 S. Woodlawn and buy a University of Chicago building across the Midway.  A lot of people were probably unhappy with this, because of attachment to our historic building, but there were a lot of sound reasons for it expressed, one of which was that the institution was now in horrible financial shape again, and something major needed to change.  However, this sale & move was supposed to make Meadville Lombard financially on solid ground again and able to move forward.  This plan also never manifested. 

Somewhere in there, there were talks of merging with Starr King School for the Ministry, again for largely financial reasons, although it seems like this was also at a time when we were hearing from both institutions that they were financially sound.  There are a lot of conflicting rumors I've heard as to why these talks ended, so I can't really speculate.  And it seems like Starr King-merger talks have happened twice during the years since I graduated, so that may explain why I've heard different explanations to their ending.

Then, about a year ago, the new plan, with Meadville Lombard again in financial trouble, was to do this we-don't-call-it-a-merger with Andover Newton.  Meadville Lombard was to sell its buildings and be housed in a yet-to-be-determined place with a new curriculum that was mostly distance learning (see "Touch Point"), but still somehow centered in Chicago, with some but not all of the faculty, yet be part of this new entity with Andover Newton that wasn't a merger but two separate schools in an unnamed new theological university with a library housed somewhere yet to be determined.  It had more questions than answers, except that it seemed to answer the biggest question: the financial one.  So the sale of the buildings proceeded, and finally the historic building was sold. 

Now, we're told, the sale of the buildings have put Meadville Lombard in better financial shape than was thought to be possible (even though they were thinking of this in prior years and thought it would put them in this kind of shape), and they can continue independently.  But we still don't know where they will be housed, I believe, nor where the library will go. The faculty situations seem to be getting settled, one at a time.  Since one of the reasons the talks with Andover Newton fell through were because of the concern being most raised about this -- the future of a distinctly Unitarian Universalist entity, perhaps we can breathe a sigh of relief that the talks ended rather than pursue a course that might have left us with nothing we could truly see as uniquely Unitarian Universalist in a few years.

So, breath out that sigh of relief, but then we're still not breathing easy yet.  It's still wait and see.  I know it's a tumultuous experience for students; I know, because it was one for me.  There's a lot still up in the air to be decided.  I know I'm hopeful that what's coming ahead is an era of new stability in an institution that hasn't had much of that for quite some time. 

Meanwhile, I still believe that this institution, Meadville Lombard Theological School, has done good work in doing what they're charged to do: preparing and educating Unitarian Universalist ministers.  And they are still an institution that has an important role in our past and a vital role in our movement's future.  I trust that those at the helm are doing their best to see that the institution is able to fulfill that needed role. 

And meanwhile?  Students at Meadville Lombard are learning what I learned -- all this talk of budgets and buildings and all this turnover is good preparation for Unitarian Universalist ministry. 

I'm still in the beginning of reading Rob Bell's new book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived.  Meanwhile, the controversy over Rob Bell's book and whether or not he's a Universalist continues.  Now, Rob Bell has come out and said he's not a Universalist.  There are those who will say he is anyway, of course.  But it's not so clear.  The universalism he denies is one where, "a giant cosmic arm that swoops everybody in at some point whether you want to be there or not."  It's easier to not be something that you paint as ridiculous, of course.  I've been accused of doing that with theism, so I know.  I also know this because I teach the straw man logical fallacy in English composition classes to first-year college students. 

Rob Bell set himself up a bit as a straw man by saying that he's not a theologian and also "I'm not very smart but I do know that there is good news."  But that's too easy and not very fair to just use that.  I've said all that myself at times--except the not very smart bit (not that I think I'm a genius or anything). 

So is he a Universalist?

He thinks God's grace is not limited to just Christians.  He thinks that Hell is what we make on earth, but Heaven is a real place we go to when we die.  He doesn't clarify what happens to someone if there is no eternal Hell, but yet someone doesn't choose to go to Heaven.  He'll leave that to God to sort out.  And it's hard to concieve of the person standing at the pearly gates and being invited in and saying, "Nah, I'll go to the eternal coffee shop instead.  I hear it has good music."  Although many Universalists might--they do like their coffee.

You could argue Universalism as universal salvation, and Bell seems to believe that this takes away our free will (although I would argue no more than birth or death, which his God seems content to take away choice of), or you could argue Universalism as the lack of Hell, which Bell seems to agree with. 

If there's a life after death but no Hell, there has to be a third option, or Heaven is just the default afterlife.  Bell doesn't argue for pergatory, or my coffee shop idea, but his theology seems to require it, or for him to admit what many believe--that he really is a Universalist.  And if Universalism is not the answer, has love truly won? 

I'll leave that to Rob Bell to sort out.  Over here with our heritage and living faith of Universalism, we know what it means that Love Wins.

Tomorrow is National Coming Out Day, a holiday started over twenty years ago to mark a celebration for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender youth and adults who were coming out of the closet and sharing the fact that they’re gay. This year, the weeks leading up to Coming Out Day have been horrendous and sad as we’ve heard news after news of young gay people committing suicide because of despair in the aftermath of bullying or the accumulation of messages of hate they’ve received in their short lifetimes. Tyler Clementi, Seth Walsh, Asher Brown, Billy Lucas, Justin Aaberg, Raymond Chase, Zach Harrington, and others before them and probably some other recent ones as well—a string of deaths of young boys who thought they had nothing left to live for.

It should go without sayingthat we do think their lives are meaningful and important, and cherished, and that whatever God there is or isn’t is a God of love. We think that people are born gay, and it’s not a sin, but a natural difference in a segment of humanity’s glorious diversity.

It should go without saying, but if we go without saying it, those needing to hear this life-saving message of our faith, literally life-saving message, won’t hear it. It can’t go without saying at a time when so many aren’t hearing it, and are desperate with the need to know that they are loved, and that we consider them whole and good.

So at this time, I wanted to say this, now, to all of our children, and to their parents and loved ones, that we love you, and that whoever you grow up to be, whether you decide that you’re a girl who loves girls or a girl who loves boys, or a boy who loves girls or a boy who loves boys, and whether you decide that you are the girl or boy we think you are now, or if you decide that no, I’m not a girl, I’m a boy, or I’m not a boy, I’m a girl, that we love you, and we will keep loving you and we think you’re wonderful the way you are, and we want you to be happy.

One of the best ways I know to say this message is with Fred Small’s wonderful lullaby that says you can be anybody you want to be. So if you're a parent, grab your child and cuddle up, and if you don't have someone who you can cuddle up with nearby, let this song be the arms of a loving community around you.



Adapted from homily given in worship 10/10/10 at the Universalist Unitarian Church of East Liberty.

(See here for part 1.)

Clergy know that in many cases we're just one more prop in the elaborate affair that is your wedding.  The problem is, we went to theological school for three to five years to learn our profession, and for us a wedding service is a religious ritual.  And it's demeaning to know you're being picked not because of your professionalism but because you have a nice building or because you have the right "look" for the wedding day or will look good in the pictures.  We know you're shopping around based on location and whether or not you like us, but try to hide that a little, please.  Basically, we want to be treated like professionals, and nowhere do we get treated less professionally, sometimes, than weddings.  And don't tell us something like, "Well, we want to be married by a priest, but we can't because it's our second marriage, so we had to come to you, but we'll get this blessed by a priest afterward."  Great--you've just told me that (a) I'm your second choice, (b) you don't really take either me or my religion seriously, so you'll have to get a secondary ritual done.  And, yes, I've heard this one--more than once. 

I know I'm taking something of a negative tone in these posts, and please take it with a bit of humor.  Most of the time we're delighted to help you achieve the wedding of your dreams.  But we're people too, and we get disgruntled and crotchety, and in writing this down I'm letting you see the dark side of the clergy--that we do grumble about some of the things that happen, we do exchange wedding horror stories, and we do have our pet peeves--mine are the aisle runners and the photographers.  Here's some others that I've either experienced or heard about:

1.  Wedding Planners - I haven't worked with these much, but I know from colleagues who have that there can sometimes be a clash of wills here.  We're used to running things our way, and wedding planners are used to running things their way.  It can throw us off our game to have an insistent wedding planner in the mix.

2.  Ring Pillows - Put fake rings on them, folks.  Stopping to untie tough knots that kept little ones from losing the rings can be pretty annoying.  So can chasing a wayward ring bearer down the aisle (okay, I've never heard of that happening--but I bet it has!).

3.  Ring Bearers and Flower Girls - Having little children in the service can be charming and adorable.  It can also be your worst nightmare.  Pick older children, and only have children if you're okay with something going wrong, because most of the time, no matter how adorable and obedient you think these children are, something will, indeed, go wrong.  Have the children walk down the aisle, and then go from the front to sit with a trusted adult.  Be prepared to go on with the show without them if they refuse to go down the aisle.  And, this is important, have that adult they're sitting with be someone who is prepared to walk them out of the wedding area to somewhere else, missing the ceremony if necessary.  You can even hire someone to be this person.  It would be a great idea. 

4.  The Bridezilla - We've seen the stereotype enough to know what I'm talking about.  Yes, it is your wedding day.  But we are not all here to serve you.  People are there because they're professionals performing a job, in which case they don't need you to be acting like you think you're a princess, or they're there because they care about you, in which case they're volunteers and friends and family, and you need to treat them with care and respect. 

5.  Groomzillas - Same goes for you, guys.

6. Drunkenness - All of us who have performed weddings have seen or heard of stories where somebody was drunk at the wedding and ruined the show.  Keep your bridesmaids and groomsmen and bridesmen and groomsmaids sober at the rehearsal, the night before the wedding, and at the wedding.  I won't perform a wedding if the couple themselves has been drinking on their wedding day, and I'll kick drunken attendants out of the show.  There's nothing worse, folks, than being drunk or hung over on your wedding day.  Why do you want to be miserable on the big day?  And if you do need to get drunk before your wedding, you should be thinking twice about getting married to begin with.

7.  Tardiness & Goofing Around - I know you think you're all cool and funny when you show up late for the rehearsal and then goof off the whole time.  This is only my time you're wasting, after all.  But ministers have families and partners and social lives, and we like to be able to do something else with our Fridays and Saturdays.  So be there on time, and focus in and pay attention, and let us get through the rehearsal.  If the rehearsal takes more than an hour, it's because you weren't doing your job, and you were late and/or goofing off.  I know how to run a rehearsal, and it can definitely take less than an hour. Wedding couples, think twice about who you're having be these attendants.  If you can get by with fewer, do so--a large wedding party makes for a lot more hassle.  I wish you would pick them based on their capability of doing the job they're being asked to do, rather than your affection for them, but I know that won't be the case.  But let them know that this show will go on without them, if they can't be there.  Showing up five minutes after the wedding was supposed to begin is not acceptable behavior from one who is supposedly in this service because they care so much about you.

8.  Something Goes Wrong - Always, always, something will go wrong.  Someday I'll tell you about my wedding day, if you haven't heard the story before.  It doesn't always go that wrong, but something will happen.  If you're being wound up about it being your perfect princess day where everything is perfect-perfect, this will destroy your day.  Don't let that happen.  Prepare yourself for the fact that something will go wrong, and when it does, laugh it off and roll with it.  It'll be the great story you tell later, whether it's a ripped dress or a toppled cake.  As clergy, we believe that a wedding isn't about the cake or the dress, but about the promises and vows.  The more you can remember that and believe that, the better your day will feel when the flowers turn up wilted or the pianist gets lost on the way there.

These are just pet peeves, of course, and they're annoying.  But what's truly saddening at weddings is situations that come out between family members.  And nowhere will the worst of your family dynamics come out more, unless it's at funerals.  It's heartbreaking to see the negative relationship between siblings get played out by a sibling deliberately sabotaging a wedding, or a parent showing the broken relationship with their child through deliberate snubbing or even lack of attention to the wedding ceremony.  There's nothing much I can do in working through the rehearsal and wedding to help you mend these relationships, and sometimes relationships are so broken they can't be mended, and for good reasons.  But do what you can before the wedding, and don't expect all those negative dynamics to go away just because it's your special day--if anything, they'll get more intense.  Weddings can bring out the worst in us all.

And now you've seen the ways in which weddings can bring out the worst in clergy--at least in this one, and make me peevish and ornery.  But on the day of your rehearsal, I'll be there to protect your interests--to do what you've asked me to, even in the face of wedding planners, mothers and fathers, and photographers, siblings and florists, all of whom think it should go the way they do it or dreamed of it.  I'm there to make it your day, not theirs.  And on the day of the wedding, I'm there to help you put all of the annoying details aside and focus in on who you are as a couple and what this ceremony you're going through is about.  Because it's not about flowers and music and rings and dresses and hair and nails and food.  It's about a lasting commitment between two people and their pledges and promises for what kind of future they want to create between them.  And I'm here for that.

To that end, one last piece of advice.  On your wedding day, I don't want you running around and dealing with the last-minute details and the things that are going wrong.  I want you to be able to be in the moment, thinking about what this is all about.  So find someone to handle those things that will go wrong, because they will--someone not in the wedding party, not a family member, but someone who is organized and who knows all your details and wishes.  If you have a wedding coordinator, that's actually great, even though I might clash with them, but if you don't, find someone to stand in in this role.  I want you to enjoy the wedding.

I only perform a handful of weddings per year, but I've been performing them for over ten years, so that's plenty of time to see some of the best and worst examples of wedding behavior.  And every year lately I've been thinking of writing up this list of dos and don'ts, but I shy away lest a particular couple think it's all about them.  Trust me, folks, it's not.  Everything on here has been done by multiple people, and sometimes it's a colleague who mentioned the particular issue I'm listing.

1.  Entitlement & Importance - Your wedding is important... to you.  For your clergy person it's just another wedding, to some degree.  And for some clergy people who are barred from legal marriage due to lack of same-sex marriage in most states, it can be a bit of a thorn in the side that couples can have a sense of entitlement about their marriage without looking at the bigger societal picture.

2.  Religion - Presumably you've come to a clergy person rather than a Justice of the Peace because you want a religious wedding.  Therefore, it would make sense if you cared a little about the religion of the person who is performing your wedding.  Learn about our faith tradition.  If you're at odds with it, you're coming to the wrong person to perform your wedding.

3.  Taste - Just because you think it would be cool to get married in the nude or dance in the aisles or include your dog or jump out of an airplane doesn't mean that your clergy person is up for this.  We may have different attitudes of what is in good taste, so check with your clergy person ahead of time if you're planning anything unusual.  You may need to find someone else, so give yourself plenty of time with this.

4.  Thoughtfulness - Your clergy person most likely thinks that the most important part of a wedding is the wedding service itself; it's what makes you truly married, not the big party that follows.  Humor us in this, and show some thoughtfulness about your wedding service.  Think ahead about what your wedding means to you and what you want it to be like.

Those are some over-arching ideas and issues.  Now into the nitty-gritty:

1.  Aisle Runners - Personally, I hate these things.  I hate what they symbolize, which as far as I can tell is about the purity and/or nobility of the bride.  That's why the bride walks on the aisle runner and not the groom.  These things are tripping hazards, and they often are difficult to roll out correctly.  The nature of them is that you only want to do it once, so it can't really be rehearsed.  They interrupt the flow, and are quickly dirty and torn.  Enough said.

2.  Flowers - Personally, I'm allergic to them.  That's the only reason they're on here.  But avoid putting them under everybody's noses.  Lots of people have allergies.

3.  Music - I'm not a musician, first of all, so don't come to me with questions about what you should choose.  If you're doing recorded music, there are lots of nice CDs out there with wedding music choices on them.  Go to Amazon and type in "Wedding Music."  Just don't wait for the last day.  Oh, but don't plan to play it off your iPod.  Who is working your iPod on the wedding day?  Is it compatible with the church's sound system?  Just a plain CD will work nicely, thank you.  And in my church, you're responsible for your music.  If it's recorded music, you need someone assigned to hit "play" and "stop."  I can't do it, and you can't do it--we're already up front.  When you hire me and rent the building, you get me and the building.  You don't get extra staff people to push buttons.  Lastly on music, unless you're working with professional musicians who do weddings all the time, have your musicians or recorded music there at the rehearsal.  Seriously.  It needs to be rehearsed.

4. Photographers - No where in weddings do ministers have more issues than with photographers, in my experience and opinion.  Here's the situation: Ministers think they're running the show.  Photographers think they're running the show.  Sometimes we can't both be right.  So here's who is: Ministers.  We believe that the ceremony is about the ritual in the present.  Photographers think it's about how it will look later in pictures.  This can be the difference between thinking that something is a theater or is a movie set.  In a theater, the most important thing is the audience's enjoyment.  Photographers don't go walking on the stage to get the close-up.  On a movie-set, the most important thing is the perfect picture.  Getting right in front of the actor may be necessary.  Here's why the ministers are right: If it's our church, it's our decision, our rules.  If we say no flash photography, that means no flash photography.  If we say no moving up and down the aisle and in and out the aisle during the ceremony, that means don't do it.  Please convey your minister's rules to your photographer and make sure that he or she is prepared to adhere to the policy.

5.  License - I'm not running city hall, so it's not my job to tell you how, when, or where to get your license.  I just sign it, stamp it, and put it in the mail.  It would be nice if I didn't have to stamp it because you'd done that, however.

That's enough for Part 1.  Coming up in Part 2: late, drunk, and unruly wedding parties; screaming and kicking little children; bridezillas; and more!

Well, the Florida pastor decided not to burn a Qur'an last Saturday, but somebody in East Lansing did.  While the local Muslim group was out participating in peaceful interfaith work in the community, somebody left a burned copy of the holy text on their property.  Some are calling it free speech, others a hate crime.  Yes, it is symbolic action.  But this Qur'an wasn't just burned on a church's property and left there, it was dumped on the doorstep of the mosque.

I would protect your right to burn a Qur'an or the flag or the Bible or any other heavily symbolic item on your own property, as long as the burning is done within proper guidelines for fires.  Of course, I wouldn't defend your choice as a good one. 

However, that doesn't give someone the right to bring that hateful symbol they've created and shove it in the face of a community that it means a lot to.  As the article linked to above rightly points out, you can't paint a swastika on the walls of the synogogue, you can't burn a cross in the yard of a black church, and, no, you can't leave a burned Qur'an on the steps of the mosque.   Even in a free society your free speech ends where it meets up with other people's property and safety rights.

Beyond all this, however, I'm saddened and disgusted that something like this happened so close to home. 

I recently was in a discussion about Islam where a person said something like, "I had heard that the terrorists were just extremists, and the rest of Islam is peaceful, but then I got some e-mails that said that the goal of Islam is world domination, and that Muslims are allowed to lie about their faith if it serves the goal of spreading Islam, so how can you know what the truth is?"

I was a bit stunned into silence.  And the conversation moved on rather quickly, and before I gathered my thoughts, the moment was lost.  I'm still planning to go back to this person and see if we can have a longer conversation on Islam, one-on-one, or bring a presentation on Islam to this group that was meeting, but in the meantime, I'm, well, blogging...

I actually hadn't heard this particular myth that Islam was focused on world domination and that Muslims would lie to achieve this, so couldn't be trusted.  So I did a web search on "Islam world domination lie" and the first upteen sites that came up were like this one, which screams the headline: "Islam Permits Lying to Deceive Unbelievers and Bring World Domination!" 


What I'm finding is that these sorts of websites are very similar to, well, the "New Atheists."  Follow me for a moment here...

My major issue with the group of authors who call themselves the "New Atheists" is that they reject any sort of liberal religion as valid.  They point to the most extreme examples of religion, particularly Christianity, and say that this is what the scriptures literally says to do.  Therefore your extremists in Christianity are the real Christians, and your liberal Christians aren't really Christian.  Based on this logic, we can then condemn all Christianity as violent.

This view of Islam says, well, this is what the Qur'an literally says and if a group is interpreting, say, jihad as inner struggle, then they're not really following the Qur'an and not really Muslims and therefore all Islam is violent.

Folks, liberal religion exists in Islam, and it exists in Christianity.  And, yes, there are violent extremists in both.  There are people bent on world domination in both, and people who will lie to achieve this in both.

And the best way to fight extremism is not to fight the liberals of that faith, label them as equivalent to the extremists, and subject them to persecution. 

Here's an analogy to help out: Terrorists are to peaceful Muslims like Imam Rauf as that pastor in Gainesville is to Jim Wallis. 

In my last post, I argued that it is arguably a mosque that is being proposed by Park 51 to be built on Park Ave near "Ground Zero," although it is not only or even primarily a mosque.  It is not, I argued, at "Ground Zero"--the real site of this community center (potentially including a mosque) is outside of the area most Americans would consider to be "Ground Zero."  And, finally, the Cordoba Initiative should definitely have the right to build there. 

However, I always argue that just because someone has the right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing for them to do.  So yes, the Cordoba Initiative should have the right to build a mosque anywhere that it's not in violation of local zoning--any place any other house of worship could be built.  But it is the right thing for them to do, or is it, as many have been arguing, insensitive?  After all, even the president, after saying they had the right to build it, came back and said, "I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there."

Here's the basic argument, as put forth by Pamela Geller, author of the blog "Atlas Shrugs" and a major player in all of this:

Ground Zero is a war memorial, Ground Zero is a burial ground. We are asking for sensitivity…It is unconscionable to build a shrine to the very ideology that inspired the jihadist attacks at Ground Zero, right there. We are asking the imam Rauf and Daisy Khan to be sensitive. For mutual respect and mutual understanding that is demanded of us every day.

If it was a shrine to "the very ideology that inspired the jihadist attacks," I would, indeed, think it was insensitive.  What is the ideology of the Cordoba Initiative?

The programs at Cordoba Initiative (CI) are designed to cultivate multi-cultural and multi-faith understanding across minds and borders. In the ten years since our founding, the necessity to strengthen the bridge between Islam and the West continues to prevail. Cordoba Initiative seeks to actively promote engagement through a myriad of programs, by reinforcing similarities and addressing differences.

The imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, who has been attacked as extremist and supporting terrorism is in fact a peaceful Sufi who has worked in interfaith circles for years, and, with Unitarian Universalism's own Rev. Dr. William F. Schulz, co-authored "The End of Barbarism?  The Phenomenon of Torture and the Search for the Common Good."  In it they write that there are two great religious commandments, to love God and to love your neighbor, and:

...the core of Islamic law, the Sharia, is built on these two fundamental commandments, with the sole difference that “to honor God and neighbor,” rather than “to love God and neighbor," more accurately captures the nuances of these commandments in Islamic legal language... Even today in many parts of the non-Western world, to deprive someone of his dignity and honor, to make him “lose face,” is to make him suffer a fate worse than death.

There is, then, a code of behavior that is based on eternal ethical principles common to the Abrahamic faith traditions, namely, that if we would love and honor the Holy, we must treat our fellow human beings with basic respect. This principle in turn is fundamental to any notion of the “common good.” For the common good presumes that human beings share certain needs and values that transcend religious, racial or political differences.

The argument that building Park 51 close to the World Trade Center site is insensitive rests on the equation of this peaceful Sufi group with a history of both interfaith work and active work against terrorism and barbarism with the terrorists responsible for the attacks of September 11th, 2001.  It is an equation that is deeply insensitive itself in that it denies the differences that exist in Islam, ignores that Sufi Muslims are themselves often persecuted and targeted by those same extremist groups, and ignores that whereas the terrorists were not, these peaceful Muslims are Americans who have been living, working, and worshiping in New York City for decades--it is not a case of outsiders moving in and erecting a monument to something foreign, it is Americans building a house of peace in their own neighborhood.  It ignores that Muslims died on September 11th, too.  It ignores that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his congregation went and distributed water to the rescue workers after the September 11th attacks.  It ignores that the imam has worked with our government to understand Islam and to keep Muslim American groups terrorist-free.  It ignores that these Muslims have been victims of religious intolerance within their own country--America--and yet still care enough about our freedoms and our beliefs to want to create a center to help us explore our own stereotypes and learn to work more peacefully with them.

One of the saddest after-effects of September 11th has been the Islamophobia that has been demonstrated in our country, a country founded on principles of religious freedom.  I understand that a lot of Americans think that the building of this cultural center designed to create peace and understanding is "insensitive."  I also understand that there is a huge amount of ignorance about and prejudice against Islam in this country.  I've witnessed it both through knowing people who shared these prejudices and through hearing the stories of my Muslim friends.  The fact that the majority of Americans don't want this project to go forward near Ground Zero doesn't mean that they're right or that the creators of it are insensitive.  What it means is that there is a lot more education that needs to be done in this country about what our Muslim neighbors believe.  And it means that the Park 51 initiative is desperately needed.

I've been in ministry nine years this August.  This means I started my ministry in August 2001, and was about a month in when the attacks of September 11, 2001 happened.  Like many people, I remember what I was doing and where I was when I heard the news--a member of the congregation called me.  Immediately, my question was about how to minister to my congregation and community in this situation.  I've talked with other clergy who began their ministries when I did, and they have a similar response--our ministries were shaped immediately, and perhaps permanently, by September 11th.  Immediately, September 11th, 2001 became about our religious response, both pastoral and prophetic.  The first response was about the pastoral--a vigil held at the church for a congregation worried about friends and loved ones and the possibility of future attacks on the city we were in, home of major oil companies and the George Bush Airport. I remember the next event in my schedule, I think the very next day, was a meeting with my clergy cluster, the other Unitarian Universalist ministers in the city, and we all talked about what we would be doing the following Sunday, and shared resources.  I'm still grateful for the advice I received that day from my more experienced colleagues whom I had barely met. 

Very quickly, the news came out that these attacks were the work of As-Qaeda, and the prophetic part of my ministry emerged.  We were contacted by a local Sufi group who had a visiting leader, and they asked to come and do a presentation on Islam at our church.  We had them come for an evening presentation and also a Sunday morning presentation.  The local paper did a very large article on the event, which was a plus.  As the country's attitudes toward Muslims in America grew increasingly hostile, and sometimes violent, it became clear to me that a very important part of the religious purpose of Unitarian Universalists right then needed to be in response to this, building interfaith dialogue and cooperation. 

Here we are, nine years later, and Islam and the attacks of September 11th, 2001 are back again in our news, showing that this need for interfaith dialogue and cooperation, as various people weigh in on the issue of "the Mosque at Ground Zero."

Let's get some of the misconceptions cleaned up first:

Is it a mosque?  Those who are against it are quick to call it a mosque.  Those on the other side respond that it's a community center.  Which is it?  Well, I think it's primarily a community center, but the site for  Park51 does say future plans include:

• a mosque, intended to be run separately from Park51 but open to and accessible to all members, visitors and our New York community
• a September 11th memorial and quiet contemplation space, open to all

We need to stop pretending, on the left, that this doesn't include a mosque, when its own site clearly says that it does.  On the right, they need to admit that the mosque is not the primary function of the Park51 plan.

Is it at "Ground Zero"?  No.  It's really not.  The Park51 center would not be on the footprint of the World Trade Center.  It's on Park Place, one or two blocks north, depending on how you count.  This map may prove helpful:


View Larger Map

Also, take a look at this map, which shows where the buildings of the World Trade Center were.

Those who argue against Park51's placement need to explain the following, in order for their stance not to be hypocritical, anti-Muslim, or just plain silly:

1. Do you believe that no religion should have a  house of worship at "Ground Zero," or are you just restricting Muslims from this wide geographic area?  If the former, fair enough.  If the latter, you need to explain how this is consistent with a land of equality and religious freedom.  There's a Catholic Church even closer at 22 Barclay St.  Of course, it's possible to believe that they should be allowed to have a mosque there but that the planners should just chose respectfully not to--similar to my arguing that we have the right to draw Mohammed, but I choose not to, for example.
2. What span of land do you consider "Ground Zero"?  If you think this stretch Park Place is included in "Ground Zero," what does "Ground Zero" include?  If you just realized that your definition doesn't include the Park51 location, then your apology is humbly accepted.
3. If you are restricting all religious groups from this large area of commercial land in lower Manhattan because this is hallowed ground in some way, by what reasoning do we restrict religious groups from creating houses of worship while still allowing everything from strip clubs to a "hookah lounge" in the same radius?  What should this hallowed land include?  Understanding that this is a huge piece of commercial land in the middle of New York City, what would you put there?  And how do we allow business but restrict it to only that which is palatable to all the victims' families? 

If I were to decide what was placed at the site of the former World Trade Centers, what would I put there?  I would include a memorial which would be carefully designed and thought out and probably immediately hated by much of the population.  And I would include some sort of center for peace and religious cooperation and understanding. Oh, wait, that's what Park51 is planning on doing!

Next post: I'll address this argument that putting a mosque within a few blocks of "Ground Zero" is distasteful and offensive to the victims' families and argue for what is most needed.

There have been several requests that I post a copy of this week's sermon, a sermon subject purchased at this year's auction: Zombies.



Ringing of the Bell
Welcome and Announcements
Ringing of the Bell


Prelude: “Ase’s Death” from Peer Gynt ~ GRIEG

Opening Words: "Let Us Worship (with our eyes and ears and fingertips" ~ Kenneth Patton, #437 Singing the Living Tradition


Unison Chalice Lighting:

The torch still burns, and because it does,
There remains for all of us a chance
to light up the tomorrows and brighten the future.
…this is the challenge that makes life worthwhile.
~ Robert Kennedy, from We Light This Chalice, Rev. David A. Johnson

Hymn #1: “May Nothing Evil Cross This Door”


Story for All Ages: Selections from Shel Silverstein's A Light In The Attic
and Where The Sidewalk Ends

Singing the Children and Teachers to Classes

Joys and Sorrows

Silent Meditation or Prayer

Hymn #209: “O Come, You Longing Thirsty Souls” (Verses 1 & 2)


Reading: Selections from Zombie Haiku: Good Poetry For Your...Brains by Ryan Mecum

Hymn #137: “We Utter Our Cry” (Verses 1 & 2)
Sermon: “Sunday of the Living Dead” ~ Rev. Dr. Cynthia L. Landrum

Every year I have offered at our church auction, an auction item of a sermon topic, where the highest bidder gets to decide what I will preach on for one Sunday during the upcoming year. Usually I preach this sermon shortly before the next year’s auction, but because of my schedule with my sabbatical this year, I wanted to preach this sermon right away in this new church year.

Each time I have gotten a topic from you, the members, it has been something that has challenged me, something that I haven’t thought about preaching on before, and something that I’ve learned from in my research. Last year Jon Hart had me learning and preaching on the cosmology of the Native American tribes of Michigan, and Ann Green challenged me with the words of Miep Gies, who helped hide Anne Frank during the holocaust, about what it means to be a hero.

This year was an altogether different type of challenge, as a coalition of members banded together to give me a very unusual topic: Zombies. Many, many weeks when I type my subject of my sermon into google, even if it is not a particularly overtly religious topic, one of the first links that will come up is a sermon of a Unitarian Universalist colleague. I take it that we, as a group, have similar ideas about what would make a good sermon topic. But let me tell you, when you Google “Unitarian worship zombie,” you find that this is a topic that the web has no record of anyone in our movement ever preaching on before. Now vampires, that’s another story. Last year Matthew Johnson-Doyle, who I knew in seminary, gave a sermon titled, “Buffy, Sookie, and Who Wants to Live Forever.” Another colleague told me he recently did a “Vampire Vespers” service, complete with communion with the congregation saying in unison, “I vant to drink your blood.”

But zombies are a wholly different creature from vampires, less glamorous, less sexy, more menacing, and so there is a completely different message to be shared about them. In researching this subject, I watched the more recent zombie movies of Zombieland, and Shaun of the Dead, and the original 1967 zombie movie, Night of the Living Dead, and peruses zombie books such as The Zombie Survival Guide: Complete Protection from the Living Dead by Max Brooks, some zombie anthologies, and, of course, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies: The Classic Regency Romance - Now with Ultraviolent Zombie Mayhem! by Seth Graheme-Smith and Jane Austen.  (As an aside, I learned that to like this book you have to be a person who likes Jane Austen and you also have to be a person who likes zombies, and the intersection of the two is a very, very small group of people.)

What I discovered is there are a lot of messages to be found in the zombies in our culture. And what I want to share with you is a few ways that zombies really are important to us.

First: Zombies as an element of misunderstood religion.

What is more, if science ever gets to the bottom of Voodoo in Haiti and Africa, it will be found that some important medical secrets, still unknown to medical science, give it its power, rather than gestures of ceremony. ~ Zora Neale Hurston, author and anthropologist (Zombie.)

Zombies are commonly understood to be an element of Voodoo religion. The Voodoo religion is perhaps one of the most misunderstood religions in our culture, right up there with Wicca or Witchcraft—it’s commonly characterized as a Satanic religion, as devil-worshipping, and evil. We see this Voodoo in popular culture all the time, even in something like Disney’s The Princess and the Frog, where the evil “Shadow Man” character responsible for the froggy transformations is a practitioner of Voodoo. So it’s difficult to say anything about what zombies mean in Voodoo, since just about everything one can read on the subject is filtered through a biased lens by the time it gets into our mainstream culture. We saw a lot of misconceptions about Voodoo shared after the earthquake in Haiti, such as the quote from Pat Robertson who said that Haiti is cursed for making a pact with the devil.

So, as I said it’s difficult for me to say much about zombies in Voodoo without possibly spreading misconceptions. For example, in a book titled The Serpent and the Rainbow, the author, a physician, claimed that zombies were not just myth but scientific fact, resulting from the poisoning of individuals in order to give them brain damage and make them bend to the will of a master. This sounds like a scientific argument, on first glance. But his work has been greatly criticized and never corroborated. What I can say about zombies in Voodoo is that the word does seem to come from a West African word, Nzambi, which was the name of a God ("Voodoo Zombies"). In Voodoo, the zombie is the soul, removed from a person, not a person without a soul. Much more about this I cannot tell you, except to say to be wary of just about anything you read or hear about this vastly misunderstood religion that is a mix of Catholicism and African religions.

Of course, while the concept of zombie comes from Voodoo, people have combined the zombie idea with elements from other religions, as well. For example, one contemporary anthology of zombie short stories includes one titled “Lazarus,” where the Lazarus who Jesus brings back from the dead comes back a little, well, wrong.


Second: Zombies as symbols of the “other”.

…zombies are a great metaphor. The great mass of humanity often comes across to us as unreasoningly hostile and driven to consumption, and the image of the zombie captures this perfectly." ~ David Barr Kirtley, author (Adams 2).

Zombies are the perfect metaphor for any group of people we see as other than ourselves, and that we fear in some way. We can see zombies as metaphors for minorities, for example. George A. Romero’s iconic movie, Night of the Living Dead, which created the genre of the zombie movie, does this with the issue of race. As Stephen Harper writes:

To many people, it seemed as though there might be a race war in America. Conservative, reactionary discussions of this possibility often focused — as they sometimes do today — on the possibility that "we" might soon be outnumbered by "them." The line in Night of the Living Dead "we don't know how many of them there are" highlights this racist concern with numbers and the fear of being outnumbered or "swamped."(Harper)

Zombies can also be seen as an AIDS metaphor. Ever since Night of the Living Dead, the image of a zombie as created by a witchdoctor has been replaced by the image of a zombie plague—zombies are created through some sort of initial virus, which then spreads to each person the zombie bites, creating new zombies that become a zombie plague. It’s easy to see the parallels that existed in the early days of the HIV/AIDS crisis, where people didn’t know what was causing AIDS, feared that it would become a plague that would kill humanity. Richard Bamattre writes:

In many films the monsters are set on fire by the humans; this not only makes for dynamic filmic imagery, but references the burning of bodies during epidemics, particularly the Bubonic Plague. Other issues of viral containment are explored; the entire nation of Great Britain is transformed into a quarantine in 28 Days Later as global authorities hope to contain the virus until the infected die out. The concept of quarantine is distinctive in that it attempts to physically separate the kingdoms: citizens of the kingdom of the sick are imprisoned within the terrain of the healthy and are subjected to surveillance and often experimentation of a scientific or medical origin.(Bamattre)

Writer Nina Auerbach has said, “Every age has the vampire it needs.” Arguably, the dominant monsters of every age reflect the dominant fears of the society. And so, of course, Ramero’s original zombies reflected issues of racism, later zombies reflected issues of AIDS, current zombies reflect issues of illegal immigration. These are our fears, and we take them, label them other, and make zombies of them so that we can defeat them. As Max Brooks said, “"It's safe to do something like a zombie walk -- it isn't so fun to do a swine flu walk," Brooks said, “If, at a party, you bring up how you'd survive a zombie attack, you'd be the life of the party. But if you say, 'What would you do if super-AIDS came to America?' you'd clear the room" (Gross).  Mark Dery writes:

The zombie is a polyvalent revenant, a bloating signifier that has given shape, alternately, to repressed memories of slavery’s horrors; white alienation from the darker Other; Cold War nightmares of mushroom clouds and megadeaths; the post-traumatic fallout of the AIDS pandemic; and free-floating anxieties about viral plagues and bioengineered outbreaks (as in 28 Days Later and Left 4 Dead, troubled dreams for an age of Avian flu and H1N1, when viruses leap the species barrier and spread, via jet travel, into global pandemics seemingly overnight.(Dery)

The flip side of this is our third perspective: Zombies as civil rights metaphor. 

"Live" Free or Die.

Throughout history, great men and women have had to struggle against dictators and tyrants who wanted to keep them from living the way these men and women felt that they should.

Zombies might not be "alive" or "living" in the traditional sense, but does that mean that they're letting anybody mess with them or keep them down? Hell no. ~ The Zen of Zombie: Better Living Through the Undead, Scott Kenemore. (112)

A little while ago, when I was teaching English composition, a student of mine asked if for her argument paper she could write a paper on why zombies deserved equal rights to the living. I let her do it, and then another student jumped on board with the counter-argument. It was an interesting dialogue about the nature of civil rights, and how and why they get extended to the next group and the next group and the next group—to African-Americans, to women, to gays and lesbians, to immigrants, and to the undead.

It’s a humorous approach to zombies, but one that’s increasingly being taken as both a mockery of the left and of the right. For example, there’s Rising Up: The Story of the Zombie Rights Movement, and the movie American Zombie, both of which take a documentary-style approach to zombie rights.

What these examples tell us is that we use humor both to deflect arguments of real civil rights abuses, and also that we use humor to engage people in a real dialogue around civil rights.

Fourth: Zombies as our human fear of death personified.

The appeal of zombies is that it plays on everyone’s fear of death. A zombie represents death to the characters, and to readers and viewers. Death will always be in the back of their minds. It’s an unrelenting, unstoppable force, just like death. Zombies are out to get you; no matter how hard you try, eventually everyone has to succumb to it. It’s really an exploration of everyone’s natural fear of death. ~ Robert Kirkman, author of The Walking Dead Compendium Volume 1 ("What Do")

This is the obvious: the greatest, most ultimate fear of humanity is death. Our religions of the world are all about what is ultimate, but also what is after death—and we have a hundred answers for this greatest question—heaven, hell, purgatory, reincarnation, becoming one with the universe, becoming part of God, becoming dust. And so many religions and cultures give us examples of triumph over death, from the ancient Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, with Gilgamesh seeking eternal life, to figures who go down into the land of the dead and return such as the Sumerian goddess Inanna (or Ishtar), or the Greek stories of Orpheus trying to rescue Eurydice or Persephone who goes and returns each year to and from the land of the dead, to Odin in the Norse tales who dies and is resurrected, to Jesus of Nazareth triumphing over death both through performing miracles of resurrection and his own resurrection. Through our religions and our folk tales we are constantly telling tales of ways people triumph over death, or not.

Zombies are a portrayal of our worst fear about death—continued existence but without will, without consciousness. They are the inverse of other images of death, from angels to ghosts, where we retain consciousness, will, personality, and relationships and lose only our bodies. Zombies are our worst fears—no longer having our minds at our own control, falling apart physically, and yet remaining among us.

Through defeating zombies, we defeat death and celebrate life, giving a sense of our own immortality.


A special metaphor that zombies represent is our fifth perspective: Zombie invasion as a metaphor for real-world wars.

…do we embrace these ideas as an indirect way of processing the horror that we feel at the reality of war and torture and death? The films that have covered the war in Iraq, its foundations and its consequences, have by and large been ignored by audiences, and yet during the height of our horror at the developments there, horror films that dealt with parallel subject matter in a setting and genre divorced from reality were hugely successful. ~ Christopher Golden, editor of The New Dead. (Golden x)

and a second quote:

"I will never forget that I am a member of the Living, fighting for freedom and life, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principle that keeps my country and earth alive. --Code of Conduct, from U.S. Army Zombie Combat Skills

Zombie movies are all about the battle, and they are popular at a time, like all times, when we have people out there fighting real wars, against real enemies. It is possible that the zombie movie is our way of dehumanizing our enemy, or, conversely, of making the real fights seem less real through our absorption of fake violence. When we watch a zombie movie or play a zombie video game, we can cheer at the decapitation of the enemy without guilt. We can rejoice in violence against an enemy that is unambiguously evil. Do we then extend that over to our real wars, and carry the dehumanization to the real enemies we fight?

Lest you worry too much, however, let me give you this quote from Seth Grahame-Smith, author of several books about zombies and other undead:

Anyone who's killed by a zombie ought to be ashamed of themselves. It's the equivalent of a fighter jet being blown out of the sky with a Nerf dart. Humans are superior to zombies in every imaginable way: We're faster, smarter, stronger, more adaptable, and better looking. And yet, in zombie movies, our so-called heroes hole themselves up in a highly vulnerable location at the first sight of a limper. They sit around scratching their heads and getting hysterical while an army of the dead amasses outside instead on simply planning a counterattack. (Graheme-Smith 108-109)

Sixth: Zombies as ourselves.

Zombies don’t worry. Not about themselves. Not about others. Not about climate change. Nothing.

Zombies have “enough” of what they need in life (with the exception of living brains). Yet are, at the same time, “driven” with a passion and intensity that any CEO or motivational speaker would envy. Zombies don’t stop. Zombies don’t rest. And yet, zombies are at peace with this ceaselessness. You can be too. ~ From Scott Kenemore’s The Zen of Zombie: Better Living Through the Undead (Kenemore 2).

Zombie is a term used in our popular culture for someone who is just going through the motions. We’ll say, “He was a total zombie at work today.” Many people today have a sense that what they are doing from day to day lacks meaning, lacks importance. They’ve become zombies in everyday life.

In the film Shaun of the Dead, we see this at the beginning of the film.  The film opens with a series of people going through their everyday lives looking like zombies, shuffling off to work or staring at the TV with glassy eyes.  Over and over they make the point that we're all going through life like a zombie.

Zombies are a pop culture phenomenon that’s very popular right now, with such things as zombie walks, where people dress up like zombies and go ambling down a city street together. There’s one scheduled for September 4th in Lansing, if you’re interested in becoming a zombie yourself.

But even if you don’t enjoy acting like a zombie, or reading about them, or watching them at the movies, there’s something to be learned from the fact that this pop-culture phenomenon has become as large as it is. Zombies are metaphors for what scares us most—the other in society, the wars we fight, the ennui we all face, the finality of death.

Here in our church, in our faith, I discovered, we preach a very un-zombie-like message: we talk about the sanctity of life, the purpose and meaning to be found in living life deeply—sucking all the marrow out of life, as Thoreau put it, rather than sucking the marrow of death as zombies do. When I read through our hymnal, I found that what we celebrate is life, life, life, and freedom, freedom of thought, freedom of action, and hope for the future no matter what the fallen state of the world may be.

In some of the most popular zombie movies the zombies have destroyed everyone in the end, or, like in Romero’s classic work, the people have destroyed each other. Here in Unitarian Universalism, we hold out hope that in the world such as it is, or in a zombie apocalypse, the truest side of human nature will prove to be the best side of ourselves, and that hope for life and future will illumine our path through all our tomorrows.

May it be so.

Gifts of the Congregation: “Trio”


Hymn #324: “Where My Free Spirit Onward Leads”

Benediction

It is written in Deuteronomy:
I call heaven and earth to witness today
That I have set before you life and death,
Blessings and curses.
Choose life, so that you and your descendents may live.
~ STLT #707, adapted

Take courage friends.
The way is often hard, the path is never clear,
And the stakes are very high.
Take courage.
For deep down, there is another truth:
You are not alone.
~ Wayne B. Arnason, #698 STLT


Unison Chalice Extinguishing

Unison Closing Song 

Adams, John Joseph. Introduction. The Living Dead. San Francisco: Night Shade, 2008. Print.

Bamattre, Richard. "Epidemic of the Living Dead - Zombies as Metaphor." Scribd. 29 Apr. 2010. Web. 14 Aug. 2010.
 
Dery, Mark. "Dead Man Walking: What Do Zombies Mean?" True/Slant. 17 Mar. 2010. Web. 15 Aug. 2010.

Golden, Christopher. Introduction. The New Dead: A Zombie Anthology. New York: St. Martin's Griffin, 2010. Print.

Grahame-Smith, Seth. How to Survive a Horror Movie: All the Skills to Dodge the Kills. Philadelphia: Quirk, 2007. Print.
 
Gross, Doug. "Why We Love Those Rotting, Hungry, Putrid Zombies " CNN.com. 2 Oct. 2009. Web. 15 Aug. 2010.

Harper, Stephen. "Bright Lights Film Journal: Night of the Living Dead." Bright Lights Film Journal: August 2010, Issue 69. Nov. 2005. Web. 14 Aug. 2010.

Johnson-Doyle, Matthew. "Buffy, Sookie, and Who Wants to Live Forever." The Unitarian Universalist Church, Rockford, IL. 20 Sept. 2009. Web. 14 Aug. 2010.

Kenemore, Scott. The Zen of Zombie: Better Living Through the Undead (Zen of Zombie Series). New York: Skyhorse Pub., 2007. Print.

Louison, Cole. U.S. Army Zombie Combat Skills. Guilford, CT: Lyons, 2009. Print.

Mecum, Ryan. Zombie Haiku: Good Poetry For Your...Brains. Cincinnati, OH: HOW, 2008. Print.

Rojas, Carlos. "Our Embrace of Vampires Reflects the Needs of an Age." The Herald-Sun. Web. 14 Aug. 2010.

"Voodoo Zombies." Monstrous.com. Web. 14 Aug. 2010.

"What Do Zombies Represent?" Ragnarfan's Blog. 2 Aug. 2010. Web. 14 Aug. 2010.

"Zombie." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 14 Aug. 2010.

After reading the blog posts highlighted on "The Interdependent Web" and some of their comments, I've been thinking about whether or not I think getting arrested while doing public protest is always, sometimes, or never helpful/effective, and whether or not this particular instance of UUs getting arrested in Arizona was meaningful and helpful or not.  Obviously, an extreme being very seldom the right answer, I'm going to go with "sometimes" here, but then the second question needs further addressing.

Lest you think that as a radical lefty UU, I am always lock-step with the "party line," let me give an instance of what I think was not the most helpful or effective use of being locked up for the cause.  While I support Jay Carmona personally, and I support the cause of ENDA strongly enough that I've gone to Washington D.C. to lobby on that issue, something I've only done on this one occasion, the sit-in in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office that led to the arrest of the "ENDA Four" left me scratching my head in wonder.  Nancy Pelosi supports ENDA, doesn't she?  Why do we want to get in her way and on her bad side?  Yes, she's moving too slowly on it, but is getting arrested in her office going to be an effective way to change her mind?  When I went to my representative's office, I worked to continue my good relationship with him, brought personal stories of people I know whose lives have been affected by discrimination, and shared them with him.  It affected him enough that Schauer spoke about it the next time we ran into each other and thanked me again for sharing those stories, and assured me again of his vote.  I'm sure Jay Carmona and the other three have passionate feelings about ENDA that led to their thinking this was an effective course of action.  It's not a perspective that I right now particularly share, despite sympathy with the cause. 

Here's what I think was different about the situation in Arizona.  I believe that the UUs getting arrested did have a purpose that was helpful.  In this case, they were not only protesting the law's going into effect, they were also taking an action that they hoped would be directly beneficial to the people most affected by that law.  The Sheriff had a stated intention of doing a massive sweep on that day for illegal immigrants.  They hoped that by being a nuisance to the police, they would not only get their message across, they would also stop or slow down that sweep.  Was it effective?  I think it was, at least in part.  Yes, the sheriff still arrested plenty of illegal immigrants, but it seems likely that the arrest of so many protesters did temporarily use resources that would've been deployed elsewhere otherwise.  So it can be said that the locking up of these UUs did have at least a small impact on the situation.  As Rev. Colin Bossen writes, "Our acts of civil disobedience Thursday diverted the Maricopa Sheriff’s resources away from several planned raids and delayed, if only briefly, the implementation of the law."

In some ways, what we saw in Arizona may be the use of getting arrested at its most effective, if on a small scale.  That is, often the only gain of getting arrested is media publicity for your cause, but it doesn't change the situation at all other than to change the court of public opinion.  In Arizona, however brief and small, it may have changed individual people's lives.

Good work, friends.  And Jay, I certainly hope I'm wrong and that your getting arrested in Pelosi's office had a positive impact on her, or in other ways furthered your mission. 

When a bunch of UUs recently got arrested while protesting in Arizona (see Standing on the Side of Love or the UUA for more details), I immediately posted on the Facebook pages of those I know, "I'm proud of you."  Meanwhile, over at The Chaliceblog, "Chalicechick" was asking, "I get that people get arrested protesting with differing levels of justification for it. What I don't get is why we're all so proud of ourselves about it. It seems meaningless at best."

It's a good question.  Pride is a mixed bag.  We have pride in things that we feel good about in ourselves or others, things that were hard to achieve, obstacles that were overcome.  And yet we also hear that pride is deadly sin, and pride goeth before a fall. 
 
I've wondered about other people's misplaced "pride" in different things, and I've seen others wondering at pride I or friends of mine have had over different issues.  For example:  I'm not "proud to be an American."  I see the fact that I am American as an accident of birth that I had no particular part in, and so therefore am not proud of it.  I'm not proud of being in a family that's been in this country almost since the Mayflower, for the same reason.  I am occasionally proud of my country.  I was proud of my country yesterday when I participated in our democracy by voting--proud that we continue to have this right and that most are able to freely exercise it.  

I've heard people ask about pride in relationship to LGBT Pride, where a whole month is devoted to being proud of being a gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender person.  The White Pride movement often asks the question, "If it's okay to be proud of being gay or being black, why shouldn't we be proud of being white?"  The basic answer to this is that I think the pride isn't really in just being who you are, it's in being who you are when you're being told not to be.  The pride isn't so much in identity as it is in the overcoming of obstacles related to identity.  The pride is being able to be out despite the adversity, to hold your head high when society says you're worthless and believe in your own worth.  White Pride has none of these things.

Pride is the "sinful" sort of pride, to me, when it is about those things we were born with and were out of our control--for me, being American, being white.  If I were born with money and into a family of vast power, pride in those things would be the "sinful" sort of pride.  This sort of pride is the pride where you believe your identity puts you over and better than other people.

Now, back to getting arrested.  I think my having pride in these actions is akin to saying, "I believe in the cause that these people were acting on behalf of, and I'm proud of the fact that they acted in conjunction with their values and didn't back down from their beliefs even though it could cause them real harm."  I'm not really proud in their being arrested, per se, as much as I am them taking the actions and sticking to them that led to their arrests.  And I think one feels pride in the actions of others when one shares a connection--these were people of my faith who did this.  Much like I am proud of my daughter when she accomplishes something.  In this way, being proud of others is connected to pride in oneself.  It's there in the very way we speak of the pride--"I'm proud of my daughter," not something like, "I give to my daughter the pride which she has earned," or even, "I'm proud on behalf of my daughter."  Because the pride is displaced one step away from ourselves, however, and usually for an achievement rather than an identity, it's more of an acceptable form of pride than if I were proud of my daughter for her beauty or how many toys she has.

Furthermore, I don't think I would feel pride in people getting arrested for a cause I didn't believe in, or if I thought the getting arrested was due to people acting in an extreme way during the protest for no sound reason.  Basically, in order to have the pride in somebody getting arrested, you have to believe in the underlying cause and believe that the person was acting in response to values and beliefs that you share, and doing so in a reasonable way.  Reading all the comments at the Chaliceblog, as well as the original post, it's easy to see that the major reason why the pride is in question is because the actions and the motivations for the actions are questionable to people.  And, yes, immigration issues in Arizona are not as clear-cut to many as the voting rights of the 60s.  If I were to say, "I'm proud [as a relative, colleague, or friend] of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. for the actions he took in Birmingham and his willingness to spend his time in the Birmingham Jail as a result of them," I don't think there would be as much question around it.  History has judged and found MLK to be right in his stance. 

Were the actions of those who got arrested in Arizona both reasonable and even courageous?  Or was it "meaningless at best"?  History will be the judge of this, as well.  Despite the successes of the 60s, one lasting effect has been a sort of jaded view of any actions of protest since them.  Is this sort of protest meaningless and ineffective by its very nature?  Is it only worthwhile if a sizable percentage of the population joins you in it?  It's the very sort of questions we were asking as we went into the General Assembly this year about the efficacy of boycott.  I still believe in these tried-and-true methods of creating social change, even though it's arguable that we see less and less result from social action.  Certainly the Bush years, in my experience of them, were testament to the fact that even if a huge percentage of the population is against your actions, if you have the power you need not listen or care.

Meanwhile, I do feel pride in my colleagues and the people of our faith who went down to Arizona and stood firm in their values--those who were arrested, but also those who weren't.  

As ministers, we all know too easily the arguments to not "friend" members of our congregation on Facebook and other social networking sites.  It blurs the professional boundary we try so hard to establish.  It leaves you open to people seeing something you don't want them to see if a friend tags you with an embarrassing photo or video or comment.  And people will assume you know things they've posted there and forget to tell you.  It's definitely a valid decision to not friend, particularly if the privacy controls overwhelm you.  All of this is true.

But if you're comfortable playing with the security parameters, most of these concerns can be mitigated.  So here's some of the other side from someone who does friend congregation members.

Pastoral Care:  I don't see everything that members post, but occasionally I do see pastoral care needs on Facebook that I'm better equipped to respond to for having been a Facebook friend.   For example, when a member was dying a while back, I routinely checked in on her family's posts just to see how they were doing, and it kept me in touch with the situation in an extra way.

Denominational Connections: In my little church, as with many, it's very rare for members to attend General Assembly.  It's rare that they even attend District Assembly.  They're not on the UUA's e-mail lists for different topics, either.  The UU World is practically their only connection, other than me, to the larger UU Association.  But a huge number of them are on Facebook.  And so recently I went to the Standing on the Side of Love Facebook page, and clicked on "suggest to friends" and then looked at my church friends group.  Only about 6-7 of them were already fans of the SSL page.  So I sent all the rest a Page Suggestion.  Now 45 members this group (some of which are members of the church, and some of which are friends) are followers of the SSL Facebook page.  That's a population equivalent to half my church that's now connected to this important social justice arm of our association.  Some time ago I did similarly with the Michigan UU Social Justice Network, and many members responded.  It's an easy way to get your members so that they're seeing some of what is going on in our movement regionally and nationally.  It's definitely not this easy to send out a page suggestion for a page that you don't run if you're not friends with the people you want to invite.  It might be possible, but I think you'd have to do it one person at a time.

Communication: Once your members are your Facebook friends, it's easy to get pretty instant feedback on new ideas, by posting a discussion topic for them to comment on, or to communicate with groups quickly and easily.  Some members are much easier to contact on Facebook than by e-mail.  You can use Facebook's message system, or just sometimes post a note on their wall. 
 
Evangelism:  Facebook is a great soft-shoe evangelism tool.  Your friends can be promoting things you're doing without even doing anything, because if they make comments it can come up in their friends' newsfeed, or your page or person can be suggested to their friends just because they've connected to you.  This particularly is an important way your message can spread through your church's Facebook page, but it can also be done through your personal account.  But imagine that you post an article that you wrote about something interesting to your personal account.  A friend can then "share" that note, if you've left it unlocked for sharing, with their friends, who then will see the things that you're saying.  If your note then connects back to the church in some way, then their friends have learned a little something about Unitarian Universalism and its beliefs.  And nobody had to go knock on their neighbor's door and say, "Let me tell you about Unitarian Universalism."  And maybe, just maybe, we can stop being the "best-kept secret in town."

In thinking about the issues of attracting and then tracking Young Adult (YA) members from a church's perspective, I was thinking that maybe churches should have a membership program that works more like your local YMCA and less like, well, churches.  Here's what I've been thinking about this...

First: Income/Pledges.  Now, every UU church I know of, even if they have a minimum expected pledge, will waive that pledge for financial hardship, but it's often awkward to ask for or to have to explain, and many people fell put-out by being asked for money in churches.  There's a big issue around pledging in churches, because people have negative experiences from other churches sometimes, as well.  At the Y, on the other hand, they have a very set guidelines of what membership costs, and you pay it, and if you don't you're not a member.  They also have a philosophy that everyone should be able to be a member, and therefore they will work on a sliding scale.  This could work particularly well for young adults, to have a specific "young adult rate" annually for membership, that could be waived in case of need.   It could come with certain additional perks, like if you have a thriving adult RE program but you charge for your adult RE classes, the young adult membership could come with three free RE programs. 

Second: Transience.  I think a lot of churches think, secretly, that having young adult members is a negative because not only do they not get as much income as they pay out in dues sometimes, they also have trouble tracking the young adults because they're transient.  Churches often don't have a good way of noticing if a member has moved away and neglected to resign his or her membership.  At the Y, on the other hand, membership is for a set period for which you've paid your membership fees.  If you neglect to pay your membership fees, your membership lapses.  If you want to become a member again, you pay your fees again.  This could be a great way for young adults to become members where the church would know that they wouldn't have to go tracking the young adults down later to see if they want to retain membership or not.  In some ways, I think this would be a great way for the church to deal with all members.  Just like you renew your gym membership, you renew your church membership. 

Obviously this is quite a bit different from the way we think about church.  But maybe the reasons that membership at churches is done the way it is are no longer valid.  People move around a lot more today than they used to.  We no longer have, in most UU churches, a way we transfer membership from church to church or denomination to denomination.  You can join more than one church if you want. 

So should UU be more like the Y?

You tell me.  I'm interested in knowing what you think.  This is just a wild tangent I've been on, so I'm not wedded to the idea, by any means!

I have eight relatives who at one time or another attended a Unitarian Universalist church and who are on Facebook.  A quick polling of what their info pages say about their "religious views" gives the following answers:

2 list Unitarian Universalist (or some combination of those two words).
2 have the field blank or not viewable to me, which would be understandable given that I do things like this.
1 says "atheistic jew."
1 says "loving kindness."
1 says "Peace and Social Justice."
1 says "Aid to and support of the widows, the children, and the outcast."

Of these eight, I think two are members of Unitarian Universalist churches--one who lists UU and one who doesn't.  Most of the others attend from time to time, but not regularly enough to consider themselves members, and mostly when visiting a relative who is church-going.  So this shows that not everyone who calls themselves a Unitarian Universalist is a member of a church, and, conversely, not everyone who is a member of a church labels themselves Unitarian Universalist. 


Of course, we've long known this sort of dynamic as a denomination.  The Wikipedia article on Unitarian Universalism, for example, says that in the 2001 Census report, 629,000 people listed themselves as Unitarian Universalist, but in 2002 the UUA listed 214, 738 members.  Obviously there are a lot of people who call themselves Unitarian Universalist but don't belong to a church.

Can you be a Unitarian Universalist without belonging to a church?  I've heard it argued very eloquently that you can't.  There's a certain logic to this.  Since we're non-creedal, you don't become a Unitarian Universalist by subscribing to a set of beliefs.  How do you become a Unitarian Universalist?  By attending a church, by covenanting with us, by engaging in our dynamic living tradition.  If you're not actively engaged with Unitarian Universalism as a religion through some relationship with one of our institutions, what makes you call yourself a Unitarian Universalist?  Obviously those words mean something to those other 400,000 people, however, that goes beyond membership to a sense of their religious identity.

As a religious professional, obviously I choose to be a Unitarian Universalist who is a member of a church.  However, I did go through four years of college wherein I didn't attend church but still very much called myself a Unitarian Universalist.  So I know something about where that comes from.  However, I guess I'm getting old now, because I have trouble remembering that perspective.

Obviously we don't want those 400,000 people, including at least one of my relatives, to stop calling themselves Unitarian Universalist.  What we want is to know how to bring them back into membership in our churches, where obviously they at one point held some sort of connection that is still meaningful to them today. 

I admit to being at something of a loss as to how to draw them back. 

The workshop I attended at GA on recent trends in religious life, based on a Pew Forum study, pointed to some trends that help explain this.  It's worth noting that of those eight relatives of mine, five are Generation X or Millennials, and none of those list Unitarian Universalism, even though one attends church.  Of the Boomer Generation, two of the three list Unitarian Universalism, even though one does not attend church.  This fits very much with what I'm learning about trends, wherein for Xers and Millennials, denominational identity is not only not as important, it's really a negative.  Some of our trendier young-adult-focused churches, like Micah's Porch and Wellsprings reflect this, with a lack of denominational branding.  So does our Standing on the Side of Love campaign.  You have to look deep into these three webpages to find UU in the small print.  And this kind of approach does seem to be working with young adults who despite their lack of interest in institutions, have a growing need for connection, community, and spirituality.  They're the growing "Spiritual but not Religious" group, and we have something that can really address this, if we can leave some of our branding aside.

I'm a GenXer, so I understand a lot of these recent trends: the increased focus on parenting, the increased use of technology, the larger percentage of non-believers/atheists/agnostics, the more progressive view of LGBT issues.  But I also am a joiner, and believe in creating and belonging to institutions that support my values.  There's a real challenge before us in Unitarian Universalism on how to adapt to this new landscape.  I'm looking for ideas.

Well, it was an interesting discussion, dear readers.

Apparently what happened in the mini-assemblies was a lot of amazing, thoughtful, and hard work.  And they crafted from those mini-assemblies a resolution that bore little in common with the original resolution to boycott Phoenix by moving our General Assembly in 2012.  The full text of it is below.  What it was, in sum, was a proposal that we go to Phoenix and have a different sort of GA with minimal business and focused on working with our allies to effect change.

With the mini-assembly process completed, only two amendments were allowable in the plenary today.  One was to adopt an included by not incorporated amendment to strike the language about doing minimal business.  The other was to strike the whole resolution that came from the mini-assemblies and revert back to the original boycott resolution. 

First, there were a lot of procedural questions.  Then there was a lot of pro and con debate, the con folks mostly wanting to go back to the position of boycott.  Then 20 minutes were added to the clock, so we could debate some more.  The UUA folks had, in their wisdom, created 20 minutes of extra time in the schedule predicting that we might need this.  And the debate went on.  On the pro side were most of the constituencies involved, which made the question easier for the gathered delegates--DRUUMM, the Phoenix minister, the youth caucus, etc.  On the con side was, however, a representative of No More Deaths, who said that she had tried, but not been given the opportunity, to speak in the mini-assemblies.  This is definitely something that happens--we run out of time for every voice to be heard.

Then came the time for amendments, and both of the allowable amendments were put up, of course.  And both were voted down by large majorities.  The first vote on this was a bit confusing for people, and it looked like they were going to vote to return to the original resolution.  Fortunately our competent moderate realized that this was because people were confused, and recognized a pro and con to help people understand, and then we voted them down.  Then we returned to pro and con on the resolution from the mini-assemblies.  This continued until we ran out of time, and people were going to expand discussion or go into tomorrow, but then when our moderator reminded people that since we had voted down returning to the boycott resolution, the only option was adopt this or do nothing and do business as usual, it was clear what needed to be done.

And so, in the end, we adopted the resolution from the mini-assemblies that called for a justice-focused, minimal-business Phoenix GA in 2012.


What do I think?  I wasn't one hundred percent certain going into the plenary, but I leaned towards boycott.  I still believe money talks, and boycotting would send a strong message.  And I worry that one more protest in the street, even if you add a few thousand UUs to it, won't make a whit of difference the way pulling out all our money, save the deposits would.  A friend was estimating that in total UUs probably spend at least 7.5 million dollars when we hit a city, and that amount of money does talk, especially when added to the other organizations also pulling their meetings out of Arizona.

But, in the end, it's compelling to heed the calls of our advocacy groups, DRUUMM and LUUNA, and the ministers of Arizona, and the local Arizona advocacy groups calling for us to come.  And because of the way this new resolution was worded, and the words of the Phoenix minister sharing her vision, I feel certain that we won't just go down there and do business as usual, which I think would have been the worst option.  There are arguments on both sides of the boycott question, and, in the end, we came together as one faith and chose a strong option in front of us, working with our allies, and focusing on the work of justice.

Hopefully, for years to come in Unitarian Universalism, people will look back at GA2012 as a key moment in our religion's history where we set aside our usual ways and did the work of justice, standing on the side of love and faith, and helped to create a deep change in our nation.

----------------------------------

Business Resolution on Phoenix General Assembly 2012

Whereas the state of Arizona has recently enacted a law –SB 1070—that runs counter to our first principle, affirming the worth and dignity of every person; and

Whereas the Association stands in solidarity with allies mobilizing in love against this divisive and oppressive legislation; and

Whereas we have been invited to enter into an historic partnership with Puente and National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) to work for human rights and against racial profiling; and

Whereas the UUA By-laws specify that the power to call and locate a General Assembly belongs solely to the UUA Board of Trustees;

Be it resolved, the Assembly hereby:

1. Calls on the UUA Board to gather Unitarian Universalists for the purpose of witnessing on immigration, racial and economic justice—a “Justice” General Assembly in which business is limited to the minimum required by our by-laws—in June 2012, to be held in Phoenix, AZ.

2. Calls on the UUA Administration to work with leaders in Arizona UU Congregations to establish an Arizona immigration ministry to partner with other groups in Arizona working for immigration reform to strengthen those partnerships in preparation for our arrival in 2012.

3. Recognizing people with historically marginalized identities will be exposed to increased risk and inaccessibility, instructs the UUA Board to work in accountable relationship with Diverse Revolutionary Unitarian Universalist Multicultural Ministries (DRUUMM), Latina/o Unitarian Universalist Networking Association (LUUNA), EQUUAL ACCESS, Transgender Religious professional Unitarian Universalists Together (TRUUST) and other stakeholders to identify measures that can be taken to increase safety and accessibility at the 2012 ‘Justice’ GA.

4. Calls on the UUA Board to direct the economic impact of our presence in Phoenix toward our partners and allies as much as is feasible.

5. Calls on the UUA Board to continue providing the resources needed to build the capacity of Unitarian Universalists to stand in opposition to systemic racism in our congregations, local communities, and in our own lives.

In Part One, I left off here: I think the only options that are really viable and just are to either fund our seminarians or ministers better or to decrease our expectations about the seminary process.

Decrease Expectations?

Some people have proposed interesting models of becoming a minister that are not seminary-focused. These are certainly intriguing. As a seminary-trained minister, I see the value in seminary and I am perhaps too invested in this system to step outside of this box adequately. I see our "learned ministry" as an important and defining tradition that is part of our make-up as Unitarian Universalism. It is also in keeping with the denominations that we are closest to. I'm not quite willing to drop seminary altogether. However, there are some interesting proposals about modifying the process. Here's mine.

Shortening seminary is entirely doable. A four-year process to become a minister does seem a bit outrageous. What about a one-year process of essential courses, during which the career assessment is done, followed by a three-month summer CPE and 9-month paid internship and seeing the MFC or RSCC at the end. With one year of seminary expenses, and one year of debt load, the new minister is in preliminary fellowship. The first year would be much of what is the required coursework now: pastoral care, preaching, and UU history and polity would certainly be included. This allows the minister to be in a congregation with a mentor minister and the preliminary fellowship review process in place. The first ministry position would be a two or three-year hired-not-called preliminary position, probably in a smaller church or an association position. Churches taking preliminary fellowship ministers would know that this is the duration of the position (but there could be an option to call the minister at the end).

During preliminary fellowship, rather than just saying what the minister is intending to improve upon, the minister is actually required to take additional courses, which would be readily available as on-line courses or intensive one-week courses. The UUA could provide stipends for these courses to the new ministers. There would be one course per semester or quarter, and therefore three years of this would about equal one year of seminary. Among these classes would be more on church administration, theology, world religions, ethics. Churches taking ministers in preliminary fellowship would know that this was part of the minister's work-load, and adjust expectations to it, and maybe compensation would be decreased accordingly, paying even as low as $25,000 but also paying the part of tuition that the UUA is not paying. Thus the minister has tuition on these classes paid and is making a minimal income. This would be attractive to congregations struggling to pay for full-time ministry, who often have, by default, a series of starting ministers for short tenures. This would institutionalize that and give these congregations a sense of their role in the formation of ministers. And the load for ministers would not be unlike doing a D.Min. during full-time ministry. It's doable. I've been doing full-time ministry and teaching one class adjunct to make ends meet, and teaching one class is at least as much work as taking one class. These three years could also be framed as part of an educational process, allowing student loans to be deferred for the three years.

At the end of three years, five years after starting seminary, the minister is reviewed by the MFC, with an interview that looks much like our current MFC interview. The MFC can give the minister the all-clear to pursue called ministry or can require more work of them. If requiring more work, the minister's current congregation could keep the minister on, or the minister could move to another short-term congregation. In extreme situations, another internship, full-time seminary year, or CPE could be required at this point. More ministers might "fail" the process than currently fail the MFC process, but not more than drop out of seminary, and they would be failing with less debt load, albeit a year later than many see the MFC. The yearly evaluations, however, would give ministers a sense of what to expect at the MFC.

The danger of such a model is the danger that exists when we put fewer controls on our ministerial formation process--that unfit ministers could be serving congregations and doing a lot of damage. This still happens in our current process, of course. This would be lessened by having a process in the first years of ministry that is much more watchful than ours is now, where one graduates seminary, has yearly evaluations and regular conversations with a mentor, but where one is otherwise left alone. During the preliminary fellowship time, a minister would be, therefore, viewed by both congregation and UUA as not really a full minister yet, and this would be more appropriate. It would clear up the problems we have now where the preliminary fellowship process puts congregation and minister in a relationship that is not really appropriate to a minister who has gone through a four-year degree and is now a called minister. The preliminary fellowship process, which requires a board evaluation, makes it feel to the board and the minister like the minister is an employee of the board. In this new scenario, the minister would be an employee-hired and not called, and it would be clear why this is the case.

There are other models, of course, for decreasing the expectations of seminary. This is mine, because I think there are problems with the other suggestions I've seen. I'm not going to go into all of them here.

Increase Funding

Unless the model is drastically changed, such as above, I believe the only other option is to increase funding. Period. This can be done a number of ways. A lot of people favor funding the ministers rather than the seminarians, because then we're not paying for all the people who drop out along the way. This is pretty reasonable. It's akin to proposals where people, like doctors, go to work in under-served areas and their student loans are paid off over time. Even if model for ministerial formation is drastically changed, one must remember, we still have the problem of the current and past graduates who have lots of seminary debt. It would be good to see something beyond what the Living Tradition Fund grants currently are for those ministers with high debt and low income. It's good that there's some funds there, but it's not nearly adequate to what our ministers are facing.

A number of UU bloggers have been taking on the issue of the cost of becoming a UU minister. To see some of that discussion, check out PolityWonk, Elizabeth's Little Blog, iMinister, the Interdependent Web, Planting God Communities, Rev. Scott Wells... iMinister, in particular, has been doing a number of blog posts looking at every angle.

In a previous post I outlined the process for becoming a UU minister. The issue is that this standard process is too expensive, given the wages that many UU ministers will make, particularly in smaller churches, which we have a lot of in the UUA. (For full-time ministers, which right there is an assumption, the range starts at 37,600.)

The cost of seminary is around $15,000 per year for tuition alone, and then books and whatnot, until you're looking at a cost of around $35,000 for the year. Remember that four main choices for seminary for UUs are Andover Newton, Harvard, Meadville Lombard, and Starr King. They are in the Boston area, Boston area, Chicago, and Berekely -- not low cost-of-living areas where rent is cheap. Part-time jobs can whittle away at that, but not substantially. As I detailed in my post about the ministerial formation process, there's precious little time for part-time jobs with the whole secondary issue of constant applications during seminary.

Thus if you figure that for the four-year degree you might take out three years of loans (managing to live on the maybe $1500/month during your internship that the internship congregation provides), that might easily be a debt load of $90,000. If you have a debt load of $50,000 that you're paying off on a ten year plan at 8%, according to the UUA document linked to above, your payment will be $606. That's $7272 per year, a hard load for a new minister. Obviously if your debt load is more like $90,000 that's going to be more. If you add together the payments for the $40,000 and $50,000 loans, that's a payment of $1091 per month, or $13,092 per year. Subtract that from the lowest ministerial position and you're left with $24,518 to live on. Good news: that's slightly more than the 200% of the Federal Poverty Level that many agencies use as the cut-off for assistance... if the minister has no dependents.

But, you say there are options other than taking out the loans. Yes, there are:

• The slow route to ministry: Going to school part-time while you work full-time
• The superhero route to ministry: Working full-time while being a full-time student
• The rich route to ministry: Having enough money from other sources that you don't need to take out loans.

It's also possible, of course, to choose a cheaper seminary and lower costs that way. I can't argue with that. However, I think we need to make it possible for a UU minister-to-be without independent means to attend a UU seminary and graduate with a liveable debt load.

And, of course, a fair number of ministers will go into churches that are paying more than the minimum. Smaller churches in areas with better costs of living will pay more, but the costs of living will be higher, too. And many ministers go directly into larger churches. But there are also many ministers who will start at the bottom. Something tells me that those ministers who are in the "rich route to ministry" are not all taking the lowest-paying churches.

So you get to this issue of ministers with incredible debt loads. And basically the system needs to change. This is not a good situation to have ministers with this level of debt making these wages. It produces a high level of anxiety in the minsters, for one.

What to do now? Again, there are some options:

• Make the slow route more standard.
• Make on-line courses more available, thus lowering the need to relocate to highly expensive areas. Note: this does not necessarily lower the cost of seminary, except for relocation issues. There is often an underlying assumption that on-line courses make it available for the seminarian to continue in a pre-seminary job while completing seminary. In essence, this is a variation on the slow route.
• Require students to have money to become a UU minister. Couch it in politically correct terms that make it look like you're concerned about the minister and like it isn't classism. (Ouch! Did I say that? Yes I did.)
• Lower the cost of seminary, or at least our UU seminaries since we can't control the others. (But even so, there's still living costs.) This would require our UU seminaries being more funded by the UUA, which arguably they should be because they're our institutions. (I do think we should be funding them more. Period. There's exactly one UU library that I know of in this country. It's at Meadville Lombard. It is a valuable resource for our denomination. And it's at risk right now. Meadville Lombard is selling its building and has a future uncertain. If you care about our history and our future, care about this.)
• Lower the cost of seminary through requiring less of it--a two full academic years plus one year of internship? The arguments I see for decreasing seminary time are mostly arguing three years and the internship is separate from the seminary process. Folks, this doesn't change the amount of time spent, it just shuffles it around. Two academic years' worth of classes would be a decrease. It could be done over three years with part-time internships, but only if all the neighboring churches around a seminary take in the interns or if the classes are electronic.
  
• Provide more funding for seminarians from the UUA.
  
• Provide more funding for seminarians from individual congregations (in congregational polity, such as we have, this would be difficult to mandate).
• Provide more money for ministers after graduation to pay back loans from the UUA.
  
• Require the minimum salaries to be higher (probably would just result in more part-time ministries and under-served congregations, and be detrimental to our movement, but an impoverished ministry is also hurting our movement in ways not fully understood).
• Assume a bi-vocational ministry as more standard (pass the buck! have other companies help pay off ministerial debts!)

While I think that adequately funding our UU theological schools is a denominational imperative, it is somewhat aside from this issue, as only about a third of all UU students attend our UU seminaries, so the problem of debt load would still be in existence. Although it is arguable that if UU seminaries were among the cheapest for UU students to attend they would be better attended. While at Meadville Lombard and at Starr King I saw UU students attending the other ACTS and GTU seminaries in order to get a lower tuition rate and still have access to the UU classes and resources of our UU seminaries. In some cases, they would transfer to the UU seminary in the last year or two in order to have their degree be from the UU school. The reason that these other seminaries, located in the same city, are cheaper are varied, but one major reason is that they are better funded by their denominations. And seminarians in process with other denominations are better funded, as well, it seemed, as I saw some seminarians go through the motions of being in other denominations until they switched over to UU and let their funding go.

I think the only options that are really viable and just are to either fund our seminarians or ministers better or to decrease our expectations about the seminary process. I'll pick up there next.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

Here's what I shared at the interfaith Thanksgiving Eve service in Jackson...

In Unitarian Universalism, we’re a blend of loving and embracing tradition, coming out of an American Christian tradition, and a blend of beliefs from different world religions, cultures, and some we’ve come up with on our own. When it comes time for the holidays, therefore, we balance doing the traditional, customary American and Christian rituals with bringing in new ideas, older ideas from other places, and, always, a focus on justice. Thanksgiving is a time when we celebrate togetherness and thankfulness and abundance, but also mourn the brokenness, the brokenness of our connection to the earth, the brokenness of peace, the brokenness of our relationship to the First Nations people on whose land we stand.

I want to share with you a short reading from my colleague the Rev. Chris Buice. He speaks humorously about the dilemma we in a pluralistic faith encounter. He writes:

(See his words here.)

His question of who or what do I give thanks to is not one I can answer. I don’t direct my thanks to another entity. I am simply thankful, grateful for what I have received. And I remember that gifts have to keep moving—if you save it, store it, lock it up, it ceases to be a gift in your life. So I believe when we are grateful, we must pass on our blessings.

I want to conclude my words with a prayer that was sent to me by the Unitarian Universalist campaign for justice called “Standing on the Side of Love.”

(Sorry, folks, I couldn't find the prayer to link to directly, and didn't want to repost without permission.)

There's a discussion going on in the blogosphere about the costs of ministerial formation, and I was going to jump right in, but realized it's hard to do so without first describing what goes into becoming a minister in our denomination. So this is a description of that process. The UUA describes the process here. I'll go into some detail in a way that will hopefully be shorter and easier to follow. I may mix things up a bit, because the process has substantially changed since I went through it. You go through three stages with the UUA in becoming a UU minister: Applicant, Aspirant, and Candidate.

As an applicant, one applies to the UUA to be in the process of becoming a minister, and starts theological school. UU ministers may attend any accredited theological school. I went to one of the two UU schools: Meadville Lombard Theological School. The standard path to becoming a UU minister right now is a four-year process, although some manage to do it faster and some take longer. This involves three years of theological school, which is a graduate degree program, and a year of internship, and a semester of Clinical Pastoral Education (CPE), which is a pastoral training program that is usually in a hospital setting, although there are other settings. Aspirants are eligible for $1000 in aid from the UUA. The CPE program that I went to cost about $500. One also had to go through a formal career assessment from a specifically approved center before being a candidate. That was, when I did it, a three-day session of group discussions and taking a battery of psychological exams. The result is a long report from the center assessing one's psychological fitness for ministry.

Becoming a candidate opens the ministerial student up to more scholarships from the UUA, although they are not terribly substantial. Also in candidate status one can, and should, join the UUMA (the minister's association). To become a candidate, the major things one needs to do are to complete a year of theological school and be approved by a Regional SubCommittee (RSCC) of the Ministerial Fellowship Committee (MFC). In every year of the process, the average ministerial student is not only doing the work of seminary or internship, he or she is also compiling a bunch of paperwork. In this first year, to become a candidate, that includes applying to see the RSCC, getting letters of recommendation from the required sources, writing a sort of "why I want to be a UU minister" essay, signing a statement of disclosure about any criminal history, and completing a financial planning worksheet. One is also probably applying to do the CPE program in the summer following the first year, if the usual pattern from my theological school days holds true. That CPE application in itself is a monster, asking for a complete personal biography; four other long, in-depth essay questions, a resume, and more.

In the second year, having gotten a green light from the RSCC, a candidate continues theological school, hopefully now with a little more (maybe a thousand or two) in financial aid. This year in the model I was in during theological school, one typically applies for a year-long internship to be held in one's third year. Candidate status is required for the internship, and having completed CPE is usually encouraged.

Following internship, the ministerial student prepares to see the MFC. A final evaluation of the internship is required to see the MFC, and passing the MFC is required to go into search for a job, so the timeline is tight to try to see the MFC in the fall to be cleared while the search process that begins in the fall is still young. The paperwork for the MFC is, therefore, being worked on during this third internship year. That includes the internship evaluation, the CPE evaluation, sponsorship from a UU congregation, a biographical form, five letters of recommendation, completing a reading list, and filling out a long form (at least this is what I had to do) about one's competency in various areas of ministry, such as worship, religious education, UU history, pastoral care, theology, anti-racism, etc.

Let me just say that one cannot start the reading list too soon.

The fourth year of seminary, if one sees the MFC in the beginning of that year, is spent finishing seminary and applying for ministry positions.

What should be plain from this description is that the life of a seminarian is one of not only full-time theological school, but also one where there is a whole extra level of work required by the formation process. And this is probably as it should be for a number of reasons. However, we also do not fund our theological students very well, leaving them with three years worth of graduate school debt. Government grants are not available for theological school students, although loans are, so other than what individual congregations give (which is not very common) and the small amount from the UUA, the rest is usually paid for in three ways--from a student's prior accumulation of wealth, if applicable; from part-time jobs, if possible; and from student loans.

During my second year of ministry I tried to hold down three part-time jobs in an effort to keep my debt load down. I did manage to go a whole semester without taking out student loans. The result was that I was sick for most of the semester, as well. My physical health paid the price for that increased level of stress.

The result of all of this is that many ministers graduate with the level of debt that our doctors graduate with, and make the salaries our teachers make.

More on this and on what can be done next time.

A popular UU blogger asked recently on Facebook what we think of this preliminary and much-changed GA schedule. Some of the reasons for the changes are explained by the fact that they are working towards some goals outlined in this document from the Fifth Principle Task Force. Here's my response, which I posted on Facebook.

I think the advantages of this schedule are outweighed by the disadvantages. The main advantages I see is that people who are not delegates can leave early and people who are only focused on business can arrive late if they have no pre-GA events to attend. Also, if you're primarily focused on either workshops or plenaries you have big blocks you're not focused on where you can skip out to go sight-seeing.

Disadvantages: ***People really do start leaving early by the droves on Sunday. They have to get to work on Monday, and their flight leaves early, etc. You're going to lose huge amounts of involvement in the plenary Sunday afternoon. Also, I think this model really invites burnout. That Sunday plenary schedule is going to leave people burned out in their interest levels and dropping like flies. The break schedule is also not adequate. If people go to the Sunday morning worship, they have to have breakfasted around eight, and then they don't get to break for lunch until 1. It needs to be around noon. I also worry that the drop we've seen in the Living Tradition Fund and the drop in attendance after moving the Service of the Living Tradition to Friday will be made worse if a substantial percentage don't arrive until the business part of GA starts.

I like the goals of moving to an every-other-year GA, making GA smaller (and thereby more affordable), and making it more possible for people to vote electronically from far distances. If this gets us there, then I'll willingly (and hopefully cheerfully) go through the awkward interim stages towards that goal. If it doesn't, however, I think this has more problems than solutions.

Today is my last morning at the UUMA Convocation in Ottawa. This morning Meg Barnhouse provided worship. Her song "All Will Be Well," in which she struggles with the words of Julian of Norwich, was amazing. Her storytelling was intimate and funny and deep with meaning as well. What a joy.

The other day in a workshop on environmentalism, we heard about how people feel confronted by the overwhelming amount of what needs to be done, so they push it all away and do nothing.

Last night our UUA president was talking about how UUism can become more ethnically and racially diverse. He said that we don't get from here, where we are, to there, the true reflection of the diversity of the world, in one step. What we need to do is take the first step, perhaps the easiest step or perhaps the hardest.

Today Thomas Moore is talking about where we start in soul work, and he said something similar. We need to whittle it down to the smallest thing, the smallest change we can make. That's the change we need to make. That's a big challenge.

All too often in our lives we avoid doing anything because the task is too large. The truth is we need to take the small step. Letting ourselves be overwhelmed by the big picture gives us the luxury to not act at all. What we need to do is much harder: take the small step.

Strangely enough, this also relates to what I tell me English composition students. Too often they try to tackle a big subject, particularly in descriptive papers, and what I get is a shallow analysis. What is much more powerful is to take the small subject, and then really do it justice.

It all comes together to this: find the smallest step towards your soul, towards justice, towards your vocation, and take it.

Thomas Moore began his lecture at the UUMA Convo in Ottawa today with a story about emptiness. Nazruddin went to preach to a group of people, and when he got there he asked, "How many of you have heard me preach before?" The excited group of fans all raised their hands. He said, "Very good. You've heard me before, and so you already know what I would say." And he left. The next day he came back and asked the group, "How many of you have heard me preach before?" They'd learned their lesson, so none raised their hands. Then he said, "Well, if you've never heard me preach before, you won't understand what I was going to say." And he left. The next day he came back and asked, "How many of you have heard me preach before?" This time the confused crowd was split, and half raised their hands and half didn't. Nazruddin said, "Good. Those of you who heard me preach before, explain what I said to those who haven't." And he left.

Emptiness.

Today we had a real treat at the UUMA Convocation. There was a concert of great Canadian performers. I didn't stay until the end, but I think I caught the real highlight: two Inuit throat singers, Becky and Kendra. They did a wonderful job explaining how Inuit throat singing is done in pairs with one person leading and the other person following, copying. It's a contest to see who can make the other person laugh, so it always ends in laughter. (Here's a link to a page with a video of throat singing, and I think it's the two of them. Sorry I couldn't embed it.) They performed a number of songs, explaining each one, and then had all of us try throat singing. If you can imagine a hall full of Unitarian Universalist ministers, paired into two teams, throat singing and trying to make the other team laugh, well, you're likely to laugh yourself at the image. But even funnier was the sight of UU ministers trying to do the dance... Now that I wish I had the video of to share with you. While there's a great deal of humor in it, and it's wonderful to see a cultural practice so full of joy like the Inuit throat singing, there's also beauty, grace, talent, and a deep and rich history. We were priviledged to have Becky and Kendra share such talent with us.

Here at UUMA Convocation 2009 in Ottawa, we are, necessarily, more aware of our international relations with other Unitarian and Universalist associations. The UUMA is our professional association for ministers serving or affiliated with UUA (Unitarian Universalist Association) congregations, but also for ministers serving or affiliated with CUC (Candadian Unitarian Council) churches. We are not, here, the ministers of one religious organization.

At the ICUU (International Council of Unitarians and Universalists) workshop this afternoon, the point was really brought home that Unitarian Universalism is not a global religion. To paraphrase the ICUU president, we (the association of churches that is the UUA) are a global collection of religions that express liberal religion.

So I'm here at the UUMA Convocation, and the keynote speaker this morning was Thomas Moore.

What I took from what Thomas Moore shared with us is that there is a divorce in American culture between science and religion, which is the split between mind/intellect and soul. There's nothing surprising in that idea, of course. But Thomas Moore put it simply pointedly, saying (or this is my interpretation of what he said) that most people stop developing their idea of God as children, and the ideas of God put out there the most in our culture are essentially the God we learn at age 6 or 7. Now, reflecting a bit on what he said, imagine if you stopped your understanding of what math is or literature is or science is or medicine is at age 6 or 7. Why do we think that this childhood idea of God is sufficient? My own question is why do even ministers support, uphold, even preach this childish idea of God?

One question that was put to Thomas Moore in the question and answer time was about the New Atheists. People have probably heard me rant about the "New Atheists" before, as I beleive that they misrepresent or ignore the existence of liberal religion. Well, Thomas Moore said something very similar, which is that they haven't debated a worthy opponent. They only set up the straw man of fundamentalism and then knock it down. He suggested Dietrich Bonhoeffer, for example, as a more worthy opponent. But then, he said, atheism would just melt into God. Moore also suggested he'd be willing to debate them. Now that's a discussion I'd like to see!

Here at the UUMA Convocation in Ottawa, Ontario, a continent-wide gathering of Unitarian Universalist ministers. The last Convo was in 2002 in Birmingham, AL, so it's been seven years since we've had this meeting. Our keynote lecture is from Thomas Moore.

Thomas Moore began our lecture today with a Sufi story: Nazruddin asked a couple of men, what do you want people to say about you when you're lying there in the coffin and people are talking about you. The first one said he wanted to remembered as a good man. The second one wanted to be remembered as someone with a big heart. Then they asked Nazruddin what he wanted them to say about him. Nazruddin said, "I'd like them to look at me and say, 'Look! He's moving!'"

Great story. Of course, Thomas Moore tells it better.

Today in the English composition class I teach, we studied Frederick Douglass's 1852 speech, "What, to a Slave, is the Fourth of July?" In it he says he is not going to make an argument, which he proceeds to make:

Must I undertake to prove that the slave is a man? That point is conceded already. Nobody doubts it.

and then:

Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty? That he is the rightful owner of his own body? You have already declared it.

and then:

What, then, remains to be argued? Is it that slavery is not divine; that God did not establish it; that our doctors of divinity are mistaken? There is blasphemy in the thought. That which is inhuman cannot be divine. Who can reason on such a proposition? They that can, may - I cannot. The time for such argument is past.

After the vote in Maine this week, I ask:

Would you have me argue that gay and lesbians are people? That their families are families? That their partnerships are true marriages? That their love is love?
Would you have me argue that people are entitled to love whom they love? That they are the rightful deciders of whom they shall spend their lives with?
What, then, remains to be argued? Is it that hate is not divine, that God does not hate? That whis is not love cannot be of God. Who can reason on such a proposition? The time for such argument is past.

Now I do believe we should stand with Bishop John Shelby Spong, who said:

Inequality for gay and lesbian people is no longer a debatable issue in either church or state. Therefore, I will from this moment on refuse to dignify the continued public expression of ignorant prejudice by engaging it. I do not tolerate racism or sexism any longer. From this moment on, I will no longer tolerate our culture's various forms of homophobia. I do not care who it is who articulates these attitudes or who tries to make them sound holy with religious jargon.

I was asked to give the prayer at the Jackson Democratic Party's annual dinner tonight. What follows is the prayer I gave.

We all pray in different ways, and we often use different words for God—God, Yahweh, Allah, and some of us pray to the Goddess, or to others, and some of us don't pray at all. But here, in this place, we all join in united hope for the needs of the people of our region, and of all of Michigan, this country, and this world, so please join with me in bowing heads or holding hands.

Spirit of Life:

Today, in this hall, we pray for the people of Michigan, this country, and the world. We pray especially for the people of this state of Michigan, whom we are all called to serve in different ways. We pray especially for those among us who are called to service in our government, that they might find the strength, throughout all the pressures they face, to follow their conscience. And we pray for Democrats and Republicans, for the rich and the poor, for gay and for straight. We pray for all races and religions, and those with no religion. We pray for the first nations people on whose land we are privileged to stand. We pray for voters and for candidates, that their minds may hear the calls of justice, and their hearts may hear the calls of compassion. We pray that those who we choose on election day to lead us will be those who can hear the voices of those struggling in our community, for jobs, for healthcare, for education.

A very wise man once told a story about a stranger, beaten, robbed, and left wounded and alone on the side of the road, and about people who passed him by without helping, and then one who did. That wise man asked those who listened to his story, who was this man’s neighbor? That man, of course, was Jesus of Nazareth, called the Messiah, and the message from that story that has lived for centuries is that we are all neighbors—not just to the person sitting next to us, with whom we might agree, but to all the citizens of our city, our state, our country, our world.

There’s a story about another wise man, one who was raised in privilege, raised to be a prince, protected from all the troubles of the world, until he went out one day and saw the suffering of the people outside the palace gates. That man left the privilege of the palace to go and seek the answers to suffering. That man, who was Siddharta Gautama, called the Buddha, and he, too, taught us about the importance of paying attention to the suffering of others, and dedicating our lives to ending suffering.

Gathered here this evening, we are united in our desire to become better neighbors to one another. We are united in our desire to end suffering. We are a people united in a common goal: to create a strong and thriving community. May we be true today to our highest callings.

Blessed be, Ashe, Shalom, and Amen

Thinking about the openness of our faith to many sources, and the way we use technology, I ran across this video of the Rev. Christine Robinson talking about open source technology and our faith, and our faith as an open source faith. Very cool. I think this should be a starting point from which we talk about technology and our faith.



*Note to readers of this blog on facebook: videos may not come through to facebook. To view the original post, go to http://revcyn.blogspot.com.

Episcopal Bishop and well-known theologian John Shelby Spong issued a "Manifesto" last week, in which he said, "I have made a decision. I will no longer debate the issue of homosexuality in the church with anyone. I will no longer engage the biblical ignorance that emanates from so many right-wing Christians about how the Bible condemns homosexuality, as if that point of view still has any credibility."

I admire this stance, and am very glad he has taken it. However, I disagree very much with his reasoning: "I make these statements because it is time to move on. The battle is over. The victory has been won. There is no reasonable doubt as to what the final outcome of this struggle will be."

I very much believe that the arc of the universe bends towards justice, and that this is what the final outcome will be. However, I don't think that victory has already been won. That may sound a little like predestination for some, that the victory will ultimately be for good, but that the battle isn't won. Perhaps there is a little predestination in my faith, in the belief that good will ultimately triumph, even when we're in the midst of the darkest night.

And I think that we're not exactly in the darkest night on this issue any more, it's true. There is a way in which we can see victory more clearly now. But we haven't come so far, in my opinion, that there's only one possible end to all of this.

And while I don't believe most hearts are turned by argument and debate, and a lot of people are so entrenched in their positions that they may never be changed, I do still think there are a lot of individuals out there who can be swayed by a clear understanding of how the scriptures have been used and misused on this issue, what the science is, and a message about "Standing on the Side of Love."

But I suspect there is a difference between what I am called to do, which is to argue with individuals, and what Spong is talking about, where he has been called to be on panels where his view and those of hate are paired as if they are "equal." Does having balanced, unbiased approaches to things mean, for example, that we must balance all good with evil, in order to not be biased?

For example, our Community Forum is done in partnership with the library. The library has to, as part of their mission, present both sides of issues. I have said that while I believe all attendees should be free to express their opinions, I don't believe that all issues have two sides, and I'm not willing for us to give all sides of all issues equal weight, when we, as Unitarian Universalists, have a clear moral stance on an issue. My two main examples of this are that I'm not going to do a forum on the Holocaust and give any weight or any space on the panel to Holocaust deniers. As Spong says, "I do not debate any longer with members of the 'Flat Earth Society' either." And I don't debate with Holocaust deniers, because there is a clear truth that they stand in opposition to for reasons of hate, and to give them equal voice is destructive and harmful. (Just to be clear, no one on our committee has ever suggested that we do a panel discussion with Holocaust deniers--this is just an example.) The other example, however, that I have used in terms of talking about what I am unwilling for us, as a religious body, to do, is hold a forum in which we put gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer or questioning (LGBTIQ) people on a panel with those who are going to use words which are insulting, derogatory, or otherwise painful in their descriptions or labeling of LGBTIQ people. We've come close, and I've come close, with talking about panels on same-sex marriage which might include people from both sides of the marriage debate, but so far we haven't done such a panel. And, as I reflect on it, it may be wrong to consider doing a panel. It's one thing to allow everyone in the audience to have their questions and their doubts and their prejudices, and to try to educate, inform, and challenge those assumptions. It's quite another to risk our religious authority by giving a platform for hate.

It is so clear to me that I will not engage in a debate about whether or not the Holocaust exists. It's ridiculous to believe it doesn't, and to even suggest it might be debatable is profoundly wrong. Do I then need to say, along with Spong, "It is time for the media to announce that there are no longer two sides to the issue of full humanity for gay and lesbian people. There is no way that justice for homosexual people can be compromised any longer." I believe the answer is yes, that it is wrong to suggest lend any credence to a perspective that disregards the full humanity of LGBTIQ people by agreeing to debate that question in public forums. And, on the other hand, I think that having such a debate can still open some people's minds. Whereas the population is largely united on belief in the Holocaust, we haven't come that far on issues of LGBTIQ justice yet.

So, I'm torn. I'm thinking about it. Spong says, "I invite others to join me in this public declaration."

Maybe I will soon. Help push me there.

Some thoughts on the new social media, as I'm wool-gathering this morning: In the last year and a half, I've started writing/using a blog, Twitter, and Facebook. I've also created a Facebook fan page for my church. Right now these things are all interwoven, and I see each as enhancing my ministry in different ways.

Blogging

My blog is a public site, with no hidden posts, so it's entirely open to the public. My blog is http://revcyn.blogspot.com. That might seem pretty obvious to the people who read it directly from my blog, but I also have the blog posting automatically to the church's Facebook fan page, and people comment on it there more than they do back at the home site. I sometimes also let it post to my personal Facebook page. Since in both places it comes through as Facebook "notes," it's not always apparent to people who read it there that it's really the blog from http://revcyn.blogspot.com. Having the blog post to Facebook has probably tripled its readership at least. Now that the blog comes to the church's Facebook page, I find that many of my church members are reading it and commenting on it, whereas I've had only a couple of comments directly on the blog from church members. The interweaving of the social media, therefore, seems to be what makes each most effective.

How does having a blog serve my ministry? Having a blog is a way for me to write more extensively on issues that concern me as a minister but which are not things either large enough, broad enough, or otherwise appropriate as sermon material. I tend to get more political on the blog than I do in the pulpit. My sermon topics are also often set pretty far in advance, and the blog lets me respond to things quickly that are happening.

Facebook

My facebook page is not open to the general public. A lot of ministers do different things here, but I've gone with a policy of "friending" members of my church, but not friending members of other UU churches, unless they are someone who I have a personal (not solely virtual) connection with as a friend from before I became a minister, or, in a few cases, because they serve in some other district or denominational offices where I find it handy to be in connection with them on Facebook. (I also generally have a rule of not friending people who I don't know personally in real life.) It's hard, once you open the doors, to have hard and fast rules here. But I have started doing some things like moving UUs who I am Facebook friends with who are not members of my congregation, or personal friends or relatives, into a category where what they will see from me on Facebook is those Twitter posts that I put through to Facebook, and little else. My logic is that my Twitter site, like my blog, is a public site that anyone can view.

My Facebook account is a place where I do connect to family and friends, but I also have a lot of church members and colleagues I connect to there. So I post fairly regularly to Facebook, and I'll get a little personal about things that are going on with me, posting about my family and how I'm feeling that day, but I try to remember that while I do limit my audience there somewhat, it's still a pretty public place.

Since I have so many people as Facebook friends, however, if you happen to read this, please know that I may not see all of your posts. It would take me too long each day to scroll through everything everyone puts out there, even after I've told it to hide all your Mafia Wars information and the quizzes you've taken. I can't see, let alone respond, to everything that's put out on Facebook. If you really want me to know something, tell me more directly. Putting something out on Facebook is like saying something at a crowded party--you can't assume everyone present heard you say it, yet you shouldn't say anything you don't want repeated to everyone.

Church Facebook Fan Page

My church is on Facebook with a fan page, as well. It's an "unofficial" page of the church, so that the church doesn't accept any direct responsibility for its content. I'm an admin on the page, as well as a few other church members. Right now, "fans" of the page can post comments on the posts on the wall, and becoming a fan the page is open to anyone, so it's a very public page. If that starts becoming problematic, we'll reassess how the permissions for the page are set. The nice thing about a Facebook page, as opposed to a group, is that the status updates come through on people's "newsfeed."

I use the church's facebook page about weekly to post short reminders about events at the church. I hope that this is helping to keep people informed about what's going on at church. There are some people who follow the church's Facebook page who are very irregular church attenders, and some who have never attended, so I hope the Facebook page is letting them know about events they might be interested in that they might not otherwise hear about if they don't open their newsletter.

Twitter

I twitter at http://twitter.com/revcyn. Well, that is to say, I occasionally twitter. I often go weeks without posting directly to Twitter. But I have the church's Facebook page automatically posting all its posts to Twitter, as well, so there's fairly regular information on the Twitter account about what's going on at the church. I've thought about just setting up a Twitter account for the church, rather than for myself, but I would have to use another e-mail address for it, so that seems to be difficult to do at the moment. My Twitter account is an open, unlocked account that anyone can subscribe to. Right now it has 56 followers, but I haven't reviewed the list recently to kick out the followers who seem to follow whatever Twitter accounts they can find to promote products or pornography. I do kick those off my followers list periodically.

I haven't found Twitter to be all that useful a medium, with only a few exceptions. I did not attend the UUA's General Assembly this year, but I did watch a lot of it through the live broadcasts. While I did this, I kept Twitter open and followed and posted comments with the appropriate # sign, and this helped me to feel like I was really there at GA. For the first time, I really saw what the use of a Twitter account could be. On the other hand, there were times it was a little like flying blind, as I did find that I responded to comments of other Twitterers without hearing the original content they were Twittering about at least once. I'll also use Twitter occasionally to post on more ministry or UU-related topics that are not long enough for blog posts, but that I want to say more publicly than on Facebook.

So Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize, and arguments broke out immediately across America. The comments that made me the saddest today were from Rush Limbaugh: "And with this 'award' the elites of the world are urging Obama, THE MAN OF PEACE, to not do the surge in Afghanistan, not take action against Iran and its nuclear program and to basically continue his intentions to emasculate the United States."

As I've thought about this over the day, listening to different takes on the issue, what it comes down to for me is something a colleague said, which reminded me that Obama is creating a paradigm shift in America and in the world, and that this is putting us on a path towards peace. No, peace isn't achieved yet; that's not the point.

Part of what this paradigm shift is about is getting the American people to wake up to our role in creating a world of peace--individually. Here's some of Obama's words from his acceptance speech:

I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.

and:

this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women and all Americans want to build

and:

these challenges can be met, so long as it's recognized that they will not be met by one person or one nation alone.

and:

This award is not simply about the efforts of my administration; it's about the courageous efforts of people around the world.

This isn't merely rhetoric. It's a major paradigm shift. And it's one I struggled against in deciding to ultimately vote for Obama. I thought he was pushing responsibility away and avoiding making promises with his language about how it takes all of us. Over time, however, I came to see that he was really creating a new vision about how we do things in this country, one that just might pull us back to some of the values that were great about America, such as civic engagement, and at the same time pull us into a future which is embracing new values, such as environmental responsibility, global citizenship, and diversity. I began to see that in talking about how we would do this together he wasn't advocating responsibility, he was claiming leadership, and I had to let myself be led.

Obama accepted the award as a call to action. My greatest hope is that we can all accept the award, as a country, and try to live up to its call.

Here's the sermon I gave on health care last Sunday (September 27, 2009). Please keep in mind if you weren't there that much of the passion is in the delivery. If you were there, the same thing goes.

In eight years I’ve been in ministry, there have been a handful of national issues that have seemed to me to demand a loud, clear, moral voice from the faith community. I felt the need to speak up about the violence and discrimination I saw against the Muslim community following September 11th, 2001. I felt the need to talk about and organize forums in opposition to our going to war in Iraq. I mourned the victims of and the seemingly overwhelming racism revealed in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. There are all sorts of moral outrages, threats to the environment, racism, heterosexism, classism, and all sorts of other evils to confront in our society, but these national-level issues took a demanding center stage in their time, commanded my attention, and absorbed my thought for months. Now, the issue before us is health care reform.

And while I feel passionately also about the other issues I’ve talked about—war and peace, racism, and religious equality, the moral issues around health care reform are personal to me in a way the others are not. So it is difficult to preach about, because I not only care about it deeply and am angry on a sort of societal outrage level, I have personal anger about it that it hard to set aside. And I’m not entirely sure I want to. Striking the balance, though, is hard. It is by far harder to preach about the things that I am passionate and emotional and deeply tied to, than it is about issues I can stand back from and know that my moral clarity is unbiased by my personal desires.

My own feelings stem from two incidents. Many of you have heard these in more detail before, and some of you may have read them on my blog recently, so I’ll keep it somewhat brief. In 1993 I feel and broke my back, literally—my first lumbar vertebra. Right here. I feel it today. I feel it every day when I stand up here and preach in front of you. And I was uninsured, and I was working full-time for a healthcare company—Blue Care Network, an affiliated HMO of Blue Cross, Blue Shield. And I lost my job, I lost my apartment, and I spent years paying off my medical debt, even after government assistance. I saw exactly what still remains after the government steps in and pays hospital bills, and you still have doctor’s bills, ambulance bills, medications, and other things left to pay for.

The second incident is as I was moving here, and trying to find insurance that would cover me with a major pre-existing condition: a pregnancy. Only one insurance agency had to take me, Blue Cross, Blue Shield (my old nemesis). And they didn’t have to take my pre-existing condition of being pregnant, under most situations. It took several people working constantly on this situation for months to find me the loophole under which they had to cover my pregnancy. And thank goodness for them.

So that, in a nutshell, has made me pretty seriously personally frustrated with the insurance system in America. I believe it needs major reform. I believe that the system is terribly broken.
But the case I want to make to you isn’t about my personal experience. I have opinions about all these things, but this is not about a public option. This is not about socialism. This is not an argument for abortion services to be covered. This is not about whether or not there are death panels. This is not about economics and what our country can afford. This is not about rationing. This is not an argument about a single-payer system. This is not an argument about problems in the insurance industry. And I do have strong opinions about all these things, I say again. This is not about Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, or Rush Limbaugh. This is not a sermon about Republicans versus Democrats. This is not a sermon about House bills and Senate bills. This is not a sermon about racism against our president.

This is about a universal moral code. This is about the bottom line of what it means to be religious. This is about morality. What I want you to see is what is moral here. We’re talking about this because it’s a question of what is morally right. We’re talking about moral imperatives.

Now, there are a lot of differences people hold on what is a moral imperative. For example, I found one quote from Michael Hlinka, a CBC business columnist, wherein he says, “I’m not about to knock anyone for getting as much as they can. That’s something close to a moral imperative in my book.” (1) Perhaps most of us would disagree, and say that the drive to get what you want is not a moral imperative. On the other hand, there’s President Obama, who said, “We also need to provide Americans who can't afford health insurance more affordable options. That's an economic imperative, but it's also a moral imperative.” (2) Here, I happen to agree. I see affordable health insurance as a moral imperative for our country. Now, Obama actually goes on to explain the reasons it’s an economic imperative, but he doesn’t really explain why it’s a moral imperative. So that’s what I’d like to do today.

There are many sources of authority we could choose from, as Unitarian Universalists, to appeal to our moral consciousness. The Golden Rule exists in every religion—that which tells us to treat others with the type of care that we wish to be treated with ourselves. Turning to the Bible, one of the first stories we get is the story of Cain and Abel, wherein Cain asks God, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Of course, the reason why this piece of dialogue is such a famous line, the reason why it is repeated so many times is because of course, we are meant to understand that yes, we are our brother’s keeper. That is to say, we are told we should respect all people, and care for them like our brothers. Then, in the gospels, with Jesus, we get his teachings. I believe that the meaning of being Christian isn’t really about whether or not you believe Jesus was God, or whether or not he died on the cross, but whether you strive to live by his teachings, whether or not you choose to use Jesus and his message as a rubric for life. And Jesus said, of course, telling about the kingdom of God in Matthew 25 (KJV):

Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungered, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

If you think, well, Jesus just talks about visiting sick people, think about the medical knowledge of the time. Visiting a sick person then was pretty risky—you didn’t know that you wouldn’t be contaminated and die. Jesus asks people to risk their lives to take care of the sick. That’s a whole lot more risky than anything we’re being asked today to do to care for the sick. And, of course, many of Jesus’ miracles have to do with healing, most famously raising Lazarus up from the dead, but in over twenty other accounts in the New Testament he heals the sick. If you look at all the miracles credited to Jesus, about 70 percent of them are healing, if you count groups of people being healed as one miracle. Now, I’m also counting raising the dead and exorcisms as healing. But this is basically all he does, other than turning water into wine one time and cursing a fig tree. Basically, this is what Jesus does during his life: he wanders around, gives lectures, and performs miracles. And the miracles he performs are almost always healing the sick. And the lectures he gives often talk about how we treat other people.

To be a Christian, you must follow Jesus’ teachings. And Jesus taught by his words and his actions, too. We can’t perform miracles, but we can do everything we can to heal the sick. And that includes giving them the access to medical care.

But, as I said, in every other religion, there is the Golden Rule. And every religion has stories which tell of the importance of healing the sick. We see in Buddhism, for example, that the entire religion is a response to suffering. Let me say that again: the entire religion is a response to suffering. The Buddha became the Buddha in response to the suffering he saw in the world. He was a prince, a man who himself had been protected. He had the Cadillac of health insurance of his day: his father kept anyone sick or dying from coming near his son. And then one day he goes out into the world and sees that not everybody has access to the life he leads, and he is overcome from this experience. And he looks for answers to this, and he comes up with what we know as Buddhism.

I think you can look at the story of these two great teachers, Jesus and Buddha, as a story of two men who understood at the deepest level their moral obligations to others, and that those moral obligations were to alleviate suffering however possible. Jesus does it with miracles. Buddha does it with giving us the wheel of the law. But we have equal moral obligation to the weight these two incredible men felt on their shoulders. We have a moral obligation to alleviate suffering. As religious people, we must look out into the world like Jesus and Buddha, and look for how we can alleviate suffering. And we can do it and must do it in this country. We don’t need miracles, we don’t have access to miraculous powers to heal the sick. But we can do a lot more than we’re doing now. We have amazing scientific knowledge that Jesus and Buddha didn’t have access to. We have amazing medical practitioners. We can and must, as religious people, choose to heal the sick.

If we are moral, religious people, we must live up to this greatest moral imperative, this greatest moral obligation. Jesus saw suffering, and he went out and did something about it. Buddha saw suffering and he went out and did something about it. And now we have people in this country who dare to say that they are Christian, and they believe that the problem with health care reform is that we might possibility provide health care to immigrants? What would Jesus say about that? Oh, sorry, you’re a Samaritan, not a Jew, and so I don’t think you should have access to my miracles? No health care for illegal immigrants, they say, and then turn around and say this is a Christian nation? As long as anyone is turned away from medical treatment, there is no way that this is a Christian nation. If you believe that being Christian means being good, we are failing miserably.

Now, I know not everyone here wants to consider this a Christian nation. Perhaps you don’t want to consider us a religious nation, either, because of separation of church and state. But I do want to consider us moral people. And if you are a Christian person, or a religious person, or a moral person, our obligation is to care for others, not just ourselves. That’s the essence of faith—this connection to something other than the selfish “I”, the individual ego, that our greedy society would otherwise hold as primary. And if we are a Christian country or a religious country or a moral country, we must show it in our actions of how we treat the poorest among us. And by saying it’s about how we treat them, yes I mean it’s how we treat them medically, as well. That is the essence of religion. If you have a connection to the divine, you have a connection to other people. And yet in this country we have people dying because they can’t afford treatments. We have people becoming homeless because they can’t pay their medical bills. We have people suffering because we horde health like it is a scarce resource. And we say we respect every person on the web of life in Unitarian Universalism, and we say in America everyone is created equal. And it is meaningless. This is an outrage. It is shameful. It is a failure of epic proportions.
If we are religious people, if we are American people, we have two choices: we can change this system, or we can live in shame, knowing that we saw the shining possibility of a truly great nation on a hill and we ran the other way out of selfishness, greed and fear.

I’m sorry if you want a nuanced approach today, full of openness and seeing all sides. I don’t see it that way. There is love, and then there is this, the system that we have. There is living our religion, and then there is this, the system that we have. There is God’s vision, and then there is the system that we have. And we have a choice. We choose the path of love, of living our religion, of God’s vision, or we choose the system that we have. There is no gray area to me. There is no time for a nuanced moderate approach. There are people dying out there. And we need to stop being the country that is killing them.

(1) Hlinka, Michael. “There must be a direct connection between CEO pay, performance.” CBC News. February 5, 2009. http://www.cbc.ca/money/moneytalks/2009/02/michael_hlinka_there_must_be_a.html

(2) Obama, Barack. “Should Security Guards Wear Bullet-Proof Vests?; President Obama Urges Health Care Changes.” CNN.June 11, 2009http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0906/11/cnr.05.html.

I've taken a couple weeks off from posting about health care reform, but this week I'm preaching on it, so it's very much on my mind. Of course, sermon writing and blog writing are two very different things, so I'm writing this in hopes that it will get some of the stuff I'm feeling out of the way and I can get down to writing a real sermon tomorrow. That will be focusing on the moral issues of health care reform--our moral obligation as a society in how we deal with suffering, for example.

So today, you get how I really feel about insurance. I got in an argument with a friend recently about what the purpose of insurance is/should be. I think maybe she was arguing what it is, and I was arguing what it should be.

Essentially, what I believe insurance should be is it should be a capitalist system wherein we essentially socialize a system--we spread costs that would be unbearable for any individual person across a whole group. We collect insurance premiums in order to pay for those costs. Then, when the unbearable cost strikes you, you use your insurance.

What insurance is, in our country, is a company that works as best as it can to collect your money and give you nothing in return. This is true for every type of insurance, but particularly true for health care, and particularly egregious, since this impacts not just wealth but life itself.

The first problem with all insurance is that if you use it, your rates go up.

So, take for example automobile insurance. Anyone reading this ever decide not to report a legitimate claim for a small item because it might affect your rate? The idea that actually needing your insurance then moves your costs upwards, for any kind of insurance, is a negation of what insurance should really be about, in my definition of insurance.

The second problem with all insurance is that if you've needed it in the past, they will either deny you insurance or charge really high rates.

The third problem with insurance is that if you look like you're likely to need it, your rates will go up.

Back to automobile insurance, this means that if you have a long commute, a car that's too old or too new or too pricey, or if you are under a certain age or over a certain age, or if your car is red, or if you have any number of variables that make you more risky, you will pay more.

It's bad enough when it's your car insurance, or your housing insurance, or your life insurance, but when it's your health insurance, it takes a major toll.

The fourth problem with insurance is that the insurance company will try and limit what they could possibly have to cover as much as possible.

So, if it's housing insurance, this means if you're in an area that floods, they will not cover floods. If you are in an area that is high crime, it will not cover break-ins. As much as possible, they want to avoid covering anything that could be considered "an act of God," or anything that could be considered your own fault. What does that leave? As far as the insurance companies are concerned, hopefully nothing.

The fifth problem with insurance is that there's often not enough competition.

So for health insurance, for example, only one company in Michigan was required to provide me with health insurance--Blue Cross Blue Shield. And therefore they had no competition for my money, and I had to take whatever terms and costs they offered.

Calling this a health care crisis in our country isn't really accurate--it's a health insurance crisis. Our health insurance system no longer does what we need it to do. It's broken. It always was broken, because it was the wrong answer to the problem, but the cracks in it have gotten wider.

The reason why it is so broken? Greed. I firmly believe that the bottom line in health care insurance is a financial bottom line--how can we make the most money? What we need is a moral and ethical and compassionate bottom line--how can we help people the most?

Even calling this a health insurance crisis isn't accurate enough, perhaps. It's a compassion crisis.

First, some general definitions.

Atheist: Someone who does not believe in God. There are many distinctions you can make among atheist--strong, weak, implicit, explicit, practical, theological--but the two major ones are strong atheism vs. weak atheism. A strong Atheist believes that it is certain and clear that there is no God. A weak Atheist does not believe in God, but doesn't assert the lack of God--it could be said to include all forms of non-theists.

Non-theist: Someone who does not assert a belief in God. I would include Agnostics, Atheists, most Buddhists, and many others in this group. Some would argue any non-theist is an atheist. I generally reserve the term "Atheist" for the group that is really strong Atheists, and use "non-theists" as the catch-all term.

Agnostic: Someone who does not know whether or not God exists. Again, can be divided into many categories, the main ones being strong or weak. A weak Agnostic does not know if there is a God, but may feel that they are still weighing evidence or will receive more evidence. A strong Agnostic believes that ultimately it's unknowable whether or not God exists.

Humanist: Humanism has meant many things, but right now I'll borrow a definition from the Continuum of Humanist Education: "Humanism is a godless philosophy based on reason and compassion." A major distinction I would make among Humanists is religious Humanists and secular Humanists. Secular Humanists would assert that Humanism is a philosophy and has nothing to do with religion. Religious Humanists can see Humanism as a religion, albeit one that does not require a belief in God. It is also possible to believe in God and be a Humanist, I would assert. If you follow a "godless philosophy based on reason and compassion" that does not mean you cannot believe in God. Theistic Humanists may be rare, but they exist.

And a Note on Capitalization: Many Atheists, Agnostics, and Humanists would not capitalize these words, and many do not capitalize God. I choose to capitalize God except when I am specifically pointing out that there are a number of different gods that have been believed in by different cultures. It is important to recognize that Atheists don't believe in any god, however, not just the Judeo-Christian God. I choose to capitalize here, although I'm often inconsistent, the terms Atheist, Agnostic, and Humanist out of a measure of respect for them as religious or areligious systems. That is certainly arguable, and I imagine it will be argued. I support you who do not capitalize in your lack of capitals. I choose to differ.

I put myself in the category of Agnostic and would call it a meta-strong Agnosticism: I believe it's currently unknowable whether or not it is unknowable whether or not God exists. And I'm a Religious Humanist. I once preached a controversial sermon in my internship congregation called "A Humanist's Search for God," and was told by some Humanists that a Humanist can't search for God. (I would call them church-going Secular Humanists, which seems like an oxymoron, yet I've encountered many in Unitarian Universalist churches.)

As an Agnostic, however, I have some very clear ideas of what kind of god is possible, and what kind is not. And I have an absolute faith in this, and it's definitely a faith, because it's based on my passion, not on reason, if you want to make a distinction between faith and reason, although I reject such distinctions. We are a reasonable faith, in Unitarian Universalism. Our faith is grounded in reason.

But my faith in what kinds of god is impossible is not based in reason, although I'm sure that a reasonable argument for my atheism towards certain gods could be based in reason.

Here goes:

If there is a God...

• God does not choose the victor in football games.
  
• God does not choose sides in human wars.
• God does not save some people from disease while letting others die.
• God does not "bless America" or any other country.
• God does not send floods, hurricanes, or other natural disasters to punish people.
• God does not create diseases to punish people.
  
• God does not appear to some people and not others.
• God does not damn people for their sexual orientation or gender.
• God does not damn anyone.
• God does not demand belief in God.
  

I would say I am atheistic towards those gods. And like all atheism, in my opinion (here's the fighting words), this is based on a passionate belief that goes beyond reason. My heart and soul reject the idea that there could be a God who answers some people's prayers for life and health and not others, because I want to believe that if there is a God, God is good, and this would not match my definition of good.

No, I do not believe in the healing power of prayer. I have heard people say that I do not pray or will not pray with people. This is not true. I do it all the time. I just don't do the "God, please heal so-and-so" type of prayer. And when I am asked to pray for people, which I will do, I do not pray for God to heal them. I pray for them. I pray (which is to say voice my hope, directed to a possible God) that they find the love or the strength or the compassion they need, in themselves and in their support networks. I voice what we are grateful for, or what needs are. To me that is prayer. And that is about as far as prayer can go, in my opinion. It can give voice to things, name things. That's about it. If you hear me give the prayer at a dinner at church, you'll hear something like, "Spirit of Life, we remember... (insert negative things that are relevant--poverty, hunger, etc.), and we are grateful for... (insert food, company, program, other noteworthy positive things). Blessed be and Amen." Pastoral prayers in situations like the hospital often take a similar structure.

Okay, you say, but aren't you doing a blessing of the animals this week? Why yes. One definition of "bless" means to "hallow or consecrate." I believe all creatures are holy (inherently good and worthy of love), and so blessing something is simply a naming of its holiness. And it is possible that there is a God of love who loves all creatures, and so blessing them is a naming of that possible fact in ritual.

Which brings me to the type of God I believe possible. The God I believe could be possible would be a God that, if God is a sentient being, cares for and loves all people equally, and with a perfect love that, ultimately, saves everyone. More likely God is something more like love, or positive energy, or the greater sum of all the parts of the universe, or something we create together in the work of love and justice. It's quite possible that humans do create God, and that God isn't fully created yet. Those kinds of God are possible, to me. I find it impossible to rule out the possibility of any sort of God. Yes, the world can be explained without it, but that doesn't prove the negation of it, or the lack of possibility that there is something more.

I had an experience I've never had before this weekend. I was walking with friends in downtown Royal Oak, MI, and we passed a group of people on the street corner handing out literature. It was a group coordinated by Grassroots Atheism consisting of members of Detroit Atheists and Mid-Michigan Atheists & Humanists. Apparently they're also creating a documentary, because they were also filming. I have to say, they were polite and non-obtrusive. I didn't see them starting arguments or bothering people, just handing brochures as people passed. However, it reminded me of the end of this video (warning: strong language & intent to offend. The part I'm referring to comes about 2:52 in).



I'm not condoning the guy's rant against Mormonism, but I think the idea of Atheists going door-to-door, or even standing on the corner in Royal Oak passing out literature is pretty funny. But, at the same time as I see the humor in it, and I see where people get really irritated, as the author of that video did, at people coming to their homes to talk about their faith, sometimes I think as Unitarian Universalists we should be willing to go a little bit further than we do in sharing our own faith. Maybe not door-to-door, but let's not continue to be the best kept secret in town, eh?

*A note to readers of the blog on Facebook: Videos from this blog do not, unfortunately, come with the blog post when it feeds into facebook. To view them, you'll need to go to the blog post itself at http://revcyn.blogspot.com or, in this case, YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dW-bt_1LzY.

Lest anyone miss it, the editor of the UU World has responded thoughtfully to the hubbub about the Freedom From Religion Foundation's advertisement in the UU World here. To see some of the other opinions, follow the links from the "Interdependent Web" to various blogs and their comments. I think UU World Business Manager Scott Ulrich's words strike just the right balance. Bravo!

There's some flap being generated about an advertisement from the "Freedom From Religion Foundation" in the latest issue of the UU World. I know some people have said that they've written letters to the editor, so I imagine you'll be seeing some in your next issue. At first I didn't understand what all the fuss was about. I think I get mailings from FFRF at the church, addressed to a previous minister. I've seen their webpage, at least. From what I've seen, it seems like their major purpose is to promote separation of church and state, which is a cause that UUs generally believed in. Yes, the organization is unforunately named, and the name makes me wince. I have that same reaction every time "Imagine" by John Lennon is sung in a UU church, something I've witnessed more times than I care to count ("And shouldn't it be 'there are no countries'?" the English teacher in me asks.):

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too

Yes, folks, WE ARE A RELIGION. And I am tired of UUs glorifying the notion of no religion at church. Yes, I like the song, too, and you all sing it beautifully, but it's time to own up to the fact that we are a religion. But just as I "let" the song be sung in church, I was not ready to write a protest letter about the ad in the UU World.

Then I opened up the UU World as it arrived today. Oh. Now I get it.

The advertisement appears on the inside of the front cover. It's the first thing that you see when you open the magazine, and it's a full-page ad. It says "Are you looking for a sign? How about a bus sign? Definitely not a sign from above." This is mixed with six images of their bus sign campaign*:



It then has information on how what their agency is, "a 501(c)(3) non-prophet [sic] association of atheists and agnostics working since 1978 to keep state and church separate," and some information about where to get more information, and a membership form.

I am a humanist and an agnostic, but I could choose to talk about this as an example of the "New Atheism" which I have preached against. While this is an example of the sort of atheism which is a fundamentalist atheism intolerant of theism and theists (i.e. comparing a belief in God to nursery tales), and which, as such, I believe has no place in our churches where we embrace our theological diversity, this is not even what I find the most egregious about this advertisement and it's placement in our magazine. (And I do like Katharine Hepburn's statement a lot better among these bus signs--it's an "I statement" with a positive message about what we can do, despite their choosing to emphasize the first part of the statement over the second.)

The problem is that impact of this advertisement is that you open up our denomination's major publication, and what you see first is an advertisement that seems to be saying, "What are you doing being a Unitarian Universalist? We'd like to free you from that." It really does, after all, come down to the name of their organization, the comparing of religion to slavery, and the "non-prophet" quip. This flies in the face of our new UUA President's words, seven pages later, which say:

The message of the election is clear: We Unitarian Universalists want our movement to change. We want to embrace the possibilities inherent in these uncertain times. We are not reconciled to being a declining part of American religious life. We have too much to offer. The world needs our prophetic and compassionate voice.

If we have a prophetic voice to share, if there's a purpose to being Unitarian Universalists, and we want to grow our faith, what are we doing putting an advertisement in the very front of our magazine that mocks exactly what Peter Morales is calling us to? Why do we begin by cutting ourselves down before we can even hear his words of prophecy and power? Advertising money? It's not a good enough reason to cut down our message so effectively.

*A note to readers of the blog on Facebook: Images and videos from this blog do not, Funfortunately, come with the blog post when it feeds into facebook. To view them, you'll need to go to the blog post itself at http://revcyn.blogspot.com. In this case, you can also go to FFRF's images at http://ffrf.org/news/2009/madison_buscampaign.php.

What I'm hearing from people against healthcare reform is as follows:

• They don't want death panels.
• They don't want rationing of healthcare.
  
• They don't want government-funded abortions.
• They don't want government-funded healthcare for illegal immigrants.
• They don't want socialism.
• They want to be able to keep their existing insurance.
  

There are lots of people debunking this, but here are my thoughts:

"No Death Panels":

There are no death panels being proposed. But if you're against death panels, you should be against private insurance, because that's essentially what they offer now. The insurance company's job is to find ways to not cover people who need medical care, in order to maximize their profits. This is done through several means: denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions or health risks; denying a claim; and cancelling insurance when somebody falls into a risky category.

"No rationing":

Nobody wants this. My best friend, who is a doctor, says that she believes it'll be necessary, because we just can't afford to give the best possible treatment to everyone, and at some point you have to draw lines and say that if this will cure only 2% of patients and it costs $2,000,000 per patient, maybe it's not worth it as a society, and you can only have it if you have millions to pay for it yourself.

The truth is that this is the kind of system we have today. You can't get the expensive treatments if you don't have the money or the insurance, and you can't get the insurance if you don't have the money or you have the need for insurance. Rationing is going on, it's just in disguise.

Meanwhile, the what the government is proposing doesn't include rationing. My friend may be right, and ultimately it will be needed, but even if it does happen, it will be no worse than what is going on now. I happen to think she's wrong about this, but it is true that when new treatments are discovered and they are expensive and the become the standard of care, then the cost to the system is high. I think that could be offset by taking a slice out of the insurance agencies' profits, and a slice out of the pharmaceutical companies' profits, although I fear this won't happen. I think it could be offset, as well, by becoming a healthier nation, something that might happen if we all had access to preventative medicine and routine care. But even if it doesn't, and the costs rise, and even if taxes rise, then that doesn't mean it's not still the right thing to do.

"No government-funded abortions":

I'm as pro-choice as they come. I believe government-funded abortions would be a good thing. But I also believe that there will not be government-funded abortions under this plan. Obama has said that we have a history in this country of not having abortions paid for by federal dollars, and my understanding is that this would continue to be the case.

And despite the fact that I believe abortion should be safe, legal, and accessible, and that means paid for, I also believe that people should be able to withhold their tax dollars from things they have religious objections to. So I'll tell you what, I'll agree that you shouldn't pay for others' abortions when I don't have to pay for any war. Deal? And, because I'm generous, I'll say that it's okay to give you a religious exemption now, even if you won't do the same. Just because it's not fair to me, doesn't mean I shouldn't do the right thing by you.

Come on, we all know abortion is not going to get covered in this plan. It would be too big a deal-breaker.

"No government-funded healthcare for illegal immigrants":

First of all, this plan would not provide for routine doctor's visits for illegal immigrants.

But what do you think happens now when an illegal immigrant goes to the emergency room, say for an emergency situation? Do you think the doctors don't give him or her care? They do. They're under a moral obligation and professional vow to provide care to those needing it. And how is that care paid for? There are multiple ways it could be paid for, including grants from companies to cover it, including the hospital making provisions for doctors to have a certain percentage of their time unpaid for. But ultimately, all those ways come back to the average consumer through costs being inflated to cover those other, hidden, costs of paying for people, illegal immigrants or American citizens, who don't have healthcare coverage. We who do pay or who have insurance pay all the costs, through insurance rates or the cost of care directly, for those who don't pay for their care.

"No Socialism":

Okay, so no schools, police, fire departments, roads, or Medicare paid for by the government, either. No unemployment, no post office, no army, either.

Basically, sometimes we need the government to pay for something that covers all people--like the police, like the fire department--for the good of society. Private insurance provided by workplaces is a system that doesn't work. It doesn't work because it doesn't cover everybody with something everybody needs. Heck, it doesn't even cover everybody who works.

Socialism: Not the same as Communism. Not the same as Fascism. It is an economic philosophy, like capitalism, not a political philosophy, like democracy. Democratic socialist countries abound. Capitalistic fascist societies can exist, too.

"Keep My Existing Insurance":

I wish you couldn't. I would like a single-payer system which covers the whole country. I would like universal health care. But the fact is, I'm not going to get what I want: you are. You can keep your existing insurance under the plans that are being proposed. Anyone who tells you differently is lying.

In Conclusion:

What is so frustrating to liberals is that the plans as they're being proposed are not everything we've always dreamed of. They don't include abortion, they aren't a single-payer system. They are, in fact, a gigantic compromise, maybe too big of one, already. The truth is that what is being proposed is something that the VAST majority of Americans would find reasonable and good if they understood it. The problem is that there are a lot of lies being spread about it, and those lies are being funded by the people with something to lose, using the radio and news media's talking heads and using some elected officials, as well. And the people with something to lose here have a lot of money, because they are the health insurance agencies. Because the truth is, that if you have good options, you might not want their shoddy services any more.

Lastly, in honor of Senator Ted Kennedy's passing, and because he puts it so eloquently that I was moved to tears:

I'm still irate about Jackson County Commissioner Phil Duckham's carrying of a swastika sign to the healthcare rally/protest last week, and his comments to the press comparing Obama to Hitler. Because I am still irate, I am going to choose his latest remarks for my next rant. Reader beware.

Since the statements Duckham made, there has been a press conference about the issue that I attended, and a County Commissioners' meeting that I did not. In the write-up of those two events, the Jackson Citizen Patriot writes:

Reached by phone after the press conference, Duckham said he does not believe an apology is in order. Although his actions at the rally might not have been the best choice, Duckham said, he still stands by his comparisons between Nazi politics and Obama's plans for restructuring America.

"Was it my best choice to carry the sign — no. In hindsight, I wouldn't have done it," Duckham said. "But I will stick to my point that I was trying to make."

At the Jackson County Board of Commissioners meeting Tuesday night Duckham told attendees — some of whom demanded an apology — that the sign did not convey his message properly and misrepresented his views. He said he intends to take more care in expressing his opinions in the future.

"Apologize for my views? Never," Duckham said after the meeting. "But if I offended anyone, I apologize. That was never my intent."

Rant: That is the most nonsensical non-apology I have ever read. Honestly. It begins by saying he'll never apologize but ends with an apology? And "if I offended"??? Clearly he did. So why the "if"? And he stands by the comparison of Obama to Hitler, yet the sign misrepresented his views? Say what you mean, Duckham, and say this:

I believe Obama is like Hitler, but I regret that I said so publicly because it brought me under fire. I do not apologize for what I did, but I regret that you noticed it.

A somewhat more thoughtful analysis:
This is an excellent example of the nonapology. There was an excellent article on apologizing on NPR a while ago that talks about this, as does this blog post on "The Language Guy." The NPR article points to several ways to give a nonapology:

• Make appropriately contrite noises
• Point to extenuating circumstances
  
• Disclaim any malign intention
• Minimize the offense
• Claim to be misinterpreted
• Express regret over the response to your words
• Give contingent apologies (if...), to make your apology hypothetical

Duckham's nonapology does many of these. It gives a contingent apology for the response to his words and claims to have no malign intention. IF people are offended, he is sorry for their response to his words, but his words were not apparently offensive. And, most beautifully, he makes it clear that this is a nonapology by saying he will not apologize for his views.

My blog posts aren't usually so personal about my life as this one is going to be.

I have two main stories about my struggles with and without healthcare insurance that illustrate problems in the system. The first is when I had a major injury--a broken vertebra--when I was not insured. The second is trying to move jobs and switch insurances when pregnant.

The first situation, the broken back, occurred when I was fresh out of college. I graduated and stayed in the Detroit area doing temp work. I quickly found a job through a temporary employment agency, where they placed me in a "permanent temp" position working for Blue Care Network, an HMO of Blue Cross Blue Shield. Now, I don't know about you, but I think one reason companies hire "permanent temps" is so that they don't have to pay benefits, but ironic as it is that a health insurance agency doesn't want to have to provide all their employees with health insurance, that's aside from the point I'm trying to make. Anyway, when I first started working with them, I was still covered under my parents' insurance. That lasted until January of the new year. That was the deal back then--you were carried on your parents' insurance until the January after you graduated from college or the January after you turned 22. I don't remember which exactly was the rule, and I'm not sure how it worked for students today. In January, however, I was offered a full-time job (with benefits) with Blue Care Network, where I would be working directly for them rather than for the temp agency--they would buy out my contract with the temp agency to hire me on directly. The job was to start in early February.

On my first day of work, I slipped and fell in the shower while getting ready for work. I did, basically, a back-flip out of the shower, something I don't recommend. And I broke my first lumbar vertebra, and I ended up in the hospital. I wasn't yet actually an employee of BCN, so I lost the job. I wasn't yet insured (which wouldn't have kicked in for 3 months anyway), either. The hospital social worker worked with me to get some of my costs covered by the government--basically my hospital stay itself. I still had to pay ambulance costs, doctors' costs, and drug costs, which amounted to several thousands of dollars. Hospital stays only last a few days, so despite the fact that I was unable to care for myself, having to lay constantly on my back for a few months to recover, I was sent home to my apartment that I shared with a woman I had known only a few months (I had answered her advertisement looking for a roommate). She quickly asked me to move out, despite the fact that I continued to pay rent--having a roommate who was recovering from injury didn't suit her lifestyle. So here I was, jobless, homeless, uninsured, and still recovering from a broken back. Fortunately, I have parents who were able to take me in and who didn't charge me rent and board, so that I was able to pay off my medical debt with my income after I was able to work again. I had a safety net. But what if you don't have such a safety net? What happens to you then?

I'll finish this first story by saying that while I received immediate hospital care, I think I did not receive the same care as I would have if I had had insurance. I did not get the follow-up care that might have helped me. I got only emergency care. And I continue to suffer from this injury today. That might be true under any circumstances. On the other hand, maybe it would be less if I had received more care then.

What this story illustrates for me is just a few of the ways how the system is broken--full-time workers don't always have health insurance; employers don't stand by their employees once they get sick; if you don't have health insurance, you don't get the best care.

My second story is one that I told in a sermon on universal healthcare in January, 2008. Rather than rewrite the experience, I'll share those words:

At the recent community forum that our church hosts, in conjunction with the library, on healthcare, I shared some of what I, and this church, went through in trying to find healthcare for me when I came here. I assume that the board was informed of some of this, and the search committee of some of it, but that probably most of it was known only to Alice D., Bob L., and myself, as we struggled with the situation. I was, when I started work here, a little less than eight months pregnant. Both the people at church, and myself, I think had not thought it would be as much of a problem to switch healthcares as it turned out to be. I couldn’t just stay with my existing healthcare, because it was a regional plan for Massachusetts, and delivering my baby here would be “out of network.” Every plan we could find here, at first, considered my pregnancy a “pre-existing condition.” We finally found that if we joined as a group, as a business, rather than getting individual coverage I could be covered, but only if my current insurance was part of a group. Fortunately, through sheer luck, it was. I had to go through some work to prove that, we had to switch insurance agents, because one said it couldn’t be done, and in the end I had pretty much continual coverage. To get the healthcare insurance, I had to show proof of ordination—which involved a quick trip to the framers, who had my certificate of ordination for framing at the time, and I had to show my marriage license. I had never had to show my marriage license for any purpose, and, in fact, didn’t have a copy. Fortunately, Chicago will let you order an emergency copy by phone, but at first they had lost the record of our marriage! They found it in the nick of time, and I was able to get our whole family covered.

What did I learn from this? If you have the time and energy, and some good help, and are willing to spend a month hassling with the system pretty much continuously—I spent my entire study leave on this project, while Peter packed boxes—then you can sometimes, with a great deal of luck, work the system. The good news now is that we now have a denominational health plan, so ministers in situations like mine can carry their insurance from church to church—a major bonus for those professional interims, for example.

What does this story mean to me? Again, it shows several ways in which the system is broken: even if you have insurance, if you move or switch jobs, your pre-existing conditions may not be covered; if you have insurance and it's not an employer-provided insurance, if you switch insurances your pre-existing conditions will not be covered; with some insurances, if you go "out of network," you're basically uncovered; if you're covered by insurance but you need to move to providing your own insurance plan that's not employer-based, your pre-existing conditions will not be covered. Basically, in most cases, you cannot lose your job or switch your insurance, or any pre-existing conditions will not be covered. Again, in order to find coverage, I had two volunteers, myself, and two insurance agents working on the situation constantly for over a month.

Lastly, I know my stories are not nearly as horrible as others out there. But having experienced these myself, it is clear to me that we are desperately in need of healthcare reform. I believe we need a "single-payer" system. I will settle for a strong "government option." But leaving it all to private insurances will leave us with a system as immoral and unethical as the one we have now.

Today we had a rally for Healthcare reform in Jackson, MI. Somehow, people had gotten word that there was a rally scheduled at 4:30 to protest against healthcare reform, so various local groups got together to state a counter-demonstration in favor of healthcare reform starting at 3:30. I got notified of the event from several different agencies--Organizing for America, the Jackson Democrats, theMichigan UU Social Justice Network, MichUHCAN, andPlanned Parenthood, as well as some church members. After four e-mails in a row popping into my inbox about it, it was clear this was a big deal in Jackson.

I just received an interesting article from the University of Michigan about a study on the changes in religiosity of students by major. Humanities majors, it seems, are likely to become less religious than they were before the entered college. Science majors remain about the same. Education majors become more religious. The article states:

The groups of people and individual people who persist in perpetuating the absolute myth that President Barack Obama is not a U.S.-born citizen is troubling. What is even more troubling than the people who fervently believe this, to me, is the group of people whom I believe to NOT believe it, yet are doing everything they can to keep the rumor mill going, or to avoid stating outright that Barack Obama is, indeed, a U.S.-born citizen, in order to pander to these people for votes or other support. NPR did an excellent article on the subject, which you can listen to here.
Maddow points at the end of the first part to the fact that Republicans used a similar tactic to the ones Democrats used in putting forth a proclamation on celebrating Hawaii's statehood in order to dispel rumors that they were in favor of the draft. So certainly both sides of the aisle are good at using rumors against the other side that they stand for an issue that they don't stand for, or are going to do something they have no intention of doing.

For years, I have been carrying bottled water into the pulpit. I drink and like tap water at home, but I don't like the taste of the church's well water, so I've been porting my own water in, yes, those horrible plastic bottles that fill up our landfills. Now seems like the time to stop. So this summer I've been in search of the perfect bottle to take to church every week (and every other day I'm there, as well). I started by mentioning this to my husband. He had previously purchased some Rubbermaid ones we've been using at home: Anyone know the perfect bottle?

I'm on vacation and study leave for July, so posts to this blog may be brief, sporadic, or even non-existent for the next few weeks. Meanwhile, you're welcome to follow me on Twitter, as that shorter format is more likely to get used by me during this time, since I can post easily from most locations via phone.

I've had a couple of requests for information on when and why I screen comments, so I thought it would be helpful to create a blog post on the subject. Here's my earlier post with guidelines, but it seems a bit insufficiently explained there, because I was new and exploring what things would be like on this blog at the time.

Yes, posts are moderated on this blog. I post most comments, but screen some. Comments that are critical of my posts or of our faith are allowed. I do not want to cut off meaningful dialogue, if possible. Comments will be screened if they are name-calling, if they are discussing personal accusations outside of the content of my blog post, or for offensive langugage, including profanity or racial slurs.

Also, I often do not respond to comments. While I welcome them, I sometimes do not have time to respond, or am content to let your comment stand as is.

Thank you for reading and for your comments. I'm sorry I cannot be individually responsive at this time.

The UUA has announced a new campaign against hate crimes, "Standing on the Side of Love." Hate crimes are definitely something we've had enough of in the last year:

July 27, 2008: Jim David Adkisson enters the Tennessee Valley UU Church and kills two people and wounds more. He says in his manifesto, "This was a hate crime: I hate the damn left-wing liberals."

May 31, 2009: Scott Roeder enters a Lutheran Church and kills Dr. George Tiller. He is quoted as saying on a blog, "Bleass [sic] everyone for attending and praying in May to bring justice to Tiller and the closing of his death camp."

June 10, 2009: James Wenneker von Brunn enters the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and kills a guard. Von Brunn ran an anti-Semitic website and had connections to hate groups.

What is striking about these three, in comparison to all the other horrible hate crimes that happen, is that they all took place in places that should be places of peace, where we honor people's inherent worth and dignity. That is no accident. The location was part of the point in each of these. These crimes are about denying the inherent worth and dignity of different groups of people.

Current UUA President Bill Sinkford said, in response to the Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting:

Hate crimes strike against our nation’s highest values—equality, justice,
and diversity. People of conscience must answer ignorance and anger by standing
with the victims on the side of love and tolerance. As a nation we have to get
beyond violence as our first response to difference. We need to find a way to
move toward the beloved community, not in spite our differences but in
celebration of them.

I've been searching for a way to respond individually, and a way for our church to respond to this increase in violent hate crimes. Our monthly commUnity forUm series may provide an opportunity, if we can find the right spin that makes this make sense for a forum. Meanwhile, I'll be looking to the "Standing on the Side of Love" campaign for ideas.