No, I'm not endorsing a candidate.
I will state that on another blog, I did suggest "none of the above" as a suitable option.
It's not that they would be bad Presidents, it's just that neither of the two candidates seem (to me) to have a grasp on what problems the UUA actualy faces, and neither strikes me as being bold enough to shake the UUA out of its decades long slumber.
And to a certain extent, that makes sense; non-boldness is working. Most religious denominations are shrinking, the UUA is at least holding its own.
To make bold steps also means that one will alienate somebody - the UUA consists of a large variety of congregants, many of whom think that their religious and other views are the right and best and only good way to live. Look at the Pagan vs Humanist wars (mostly settled now, but still flaming in some congregations), or the ethical food folks vs the cheap food for the masses folks, etc, etc. I could go on, but I don't want to alienate anybody left reading this ;-) To point out the emperor's new clothes is to alienate folks. To look at a previous post, to make the UUA more culturally diverse, I think we would have to change things - and I suspect many of those things that we would need to change are things that the majority of today's UUs really really like. And therefore we "can't " change them. We can (and will ) follow the same apparent failed policies that have yet to work. How many years has the UUA tried the current plan of attempting multi-culturalism in our congregations? How successful has that particular plan been? Can we come up with a different plan?

And while I'm at it, can we make our elections democratic. A lot of our congregations allow those who can afford to travel to GA to represent the congregation and to vote however they want. How is this different than the old fashion political smoked filled back rooms?

At least I dont see either as a bad candidate, I suspect they will both be mostly status quo, which is what UUs mostly want.

Bill Baar on his blog Pfarrer Streccius mentions that Universalists used to use the phrase
"Love abides. Love does not divide." This quote, no doubt based on letters by John and Paul (George and Ringo didn't write much), is worth mediating on.

for those of us who believe that we are indeed inspired by love, this sentence is a powerful look at one of these things that Love is supposed to do. i could go on (and on and on) with details, but I think this is another area where quiet contemplation works better.
Thanks again Bill for bringing back this wonderful reminder.

"Love abides. Love does not divide."

the latest UU blog-o-versy -
did you know that theists and anti-theists ain't go no home in the UUA anymore?

Pardon my lightness, it's just that I've been hearing this same song for the past 30 years.
If it's a new experience to you, the below song is much more what you've been feeling:

object width="425" height="344">


work hard with your fellow UUs to build a better UUA... for you and them

One of the most interesting differences between Unitarian Universalist Association member congregations and other denominations or religions (besides some of us feeling we have to use the term "denominations or religions") is that as a non-creedial group, we often end up offending those of us who want a creed. Well, we might not want a real creed, just official recognition that our views are the right ones. After all, we don't want riff-raff in the pews next to us you know....who knows what they might believe. And if they don't believe like us, well we ain't got no home in this world anymore.

I know that between that opening and my previous post, I have probably angered anybody that might be still be reading this. Because yes, this is snarky, and snark is only good when it's used against the badguys and not against ourselves. We UUs have a tendency to try to be nice, to not offend, to try to heal - yes, even to try to heal those who refuse healing. We remove objects and words that might offend, without realizing that everything can sometimes offend. But posting and writing on the internet is so easy to offend - sometimes without even knowing it.
I do understand the pain of the feeling that one's home is gone. The religious denomination i grew up in took a strong turn to the right in the mid-1960s, and is still heading rightward today - my old religious home is gone, in my visits since, it has never been the same. The house I grew up in was sold decades ago, while the fields, woods, and swamp, and the outward appearance of the house still look the same; i can drive past and see the blocks that my father laid as he made the wall -- it isn't my home anymore. My best friend in high school has been dead for over 20 years now; I have large gaps of my life that i no longer know anyone who can reminisce with me about.
Some years ago, someone once told to me that Unitarian Universalism was an easy religion - I replied back that they had obviously never written a sermon for an UU service. The UUA is indeed non-creedial, people can sit in the pews next to you who dont believe any of the theology that you do. Or - as it keeps coming up - they may believe things that you despise. At which point one feels that ones home - which is supposed to be safe and secure - has been invaded. It's not my home anymore.
For decades UU Christians (and therefore UU theists of all stripes) have been told to just get out and join a Christian church. Obviously many UU Christian would have to hide their beliefs to attend most Christian Churches. It's not their real home. In the last ten-fifteen years, theists and deists have began to grow in the UUA - particularly if you include Pagans in the theist column as anti-theists often do. The non-theists are growing in the ranks of Buddhists (most of the UU Buddhists are non-theists), but their views are not the traditional non-theist language. So the non-theist, still slightly the majority view in the UUA, wonders if they will continue to have a home.
Living with people who arent the same as you, with different cultures, different classes, different races, different musical tastes, different theological orientation is not an easy task. One has to look at core values - one has also to want to live with the diversity. That's hard to do - it is possible. Many families now contain much diversity, from musical tastes onward. If a blood family can survive, so can a congregational family. It does take work; and to some, it might not be worth the work.
Is there strength in our diversity? Do we have to always be right in everything to be loved? Can we put up with the folks in the next pew over? Time will tell.....

The Universalist minister, Hosea Ballou said it so well (in this a modified version of his quote from his Treatise on Atonement):


“The moment we fancy ourselves infallible, everyone must come to our peculiarities or we cast them away. If we agree in love, there is no disagreement that can do us any injury, but if we do not, no other agreement can do us any good.”

Well there are indeed some changes being made at the SCU household, and some
major ones at that. So here's a hot version of this old (1921?) song - gee, Jazz fans, it's got Mezz on the banjo!
I'm not at liberty to reflect on those changes for another week, but it will probably be the most outrageous thing I've ever done - well maybe. The pluses of it (for me) are
obvious, the minus are also clear to me - it's an extremely drastic change. I believe that I know the negative effects, and am getting myself ready for them. I'll let everyone know next week what's up.



"Why, there's a change in the weather, there's a change in the sea,
So from now on there'll be a change in me,
My walk will be be different, my talk, and my name,
Nothing about me's going to be the same;
I'm gonna change my long tall one for a little short 'n fat,
I'm gonna change my number that I'm living at;
Because nobody wants you when you're old and gray.
There's gonna be some changes made today,
There'll be some changes made."

"Herb and Jamaal" make a good point, and one that if i had the time to get into, I would.
Why do we do certain things? To please ourselves or to please others? or is that to think we are pleasing others? what is doing the right thing?
if we have not love in our doing something, is it worthless?

I'm still moving, but getting close to the end, and getting close to starting this blog back up again.

I'm behind on my blog reading, so I missed the UU Salon's May 31st request for blogging about Universalism until today. Since I am so far behind, I haven't read blogs (I did read the beginning of Scott Wells and the UU Salon).


I see that folks are still confused about what Universalism is. That doesn't surprised me, I know some Universalist theologians who are confused about what Universalism is today. That's been the case for long time, for as Lewis B. Fisher wrote, back in 1921 "Universalists are often asked to tell where they stand. The only true answer to give to this question is that we do not stand at all, we move. or again we are asked to state our position, Again we can only answer that we are not staying to defend any position, we are on the march."

If that is indeed still true, what is universalism, and how do we catch a snapshot to show what it is today? Can all those different things be universalism?

Putting aside the issue of universalism in the early days of Christianity, Universalism was reborn as part of the revolutionary spirit of the 1700s. It was a radical idea for radical times. Dwell on that for a little bit, it believed that there was no elite in the eyes of God, that the prodigal son was as worthy as the obedient son. Is it any wonder that the same congregation included rich and poor, white and black, and that Universalists were pioneers in ordination of female clergy, and prisoner rights. And any wonder that universalist churches sprung up unconnected in many places in the USA.

Universalism was never a faith for the complaisant or those needing a impressive and status church home - Various locals kept trying to made it illegal for Universalists to give testimony in court; other churches gave sermons and wrote books on the disrespectability of belonging to such a radical faith. Even Unitarians.

Universalists reached it's peak in the 1830s, with the change of the mood of the country, and some folks knocking on spiritualism's door. It was one of the few religious denominations that did not split prior to the Civil War. However it had trouble dealing with the cynicism of the 20th Century. And various theories of
Universalism was advanced. A humanistic Universalism in the 1910s - 1920s, a pan-religious view of Universalism in the 1940s-1960s.

To a certain extent, part of modern day Unitarian Universalism has adopted the pan-religious part of 1940s-1960s Universalism. However while we embrace the idea of Radical Inclusion, it is - as you may expect - hard to implement. Who is our brother (and sister)?: How do we treat those who persecute us? How do we treat people who aren't as successful or rich or educated as us? Or eat meat, or watch TV or shop at Wal-mart, or like Praise songs? Tough going to be inclusive.

There's more to Univeraslism than that - lots more. And you note I haven't done any of the theological steps to Universalism, I didn't even mention the J- or G- names (hey, I know the audience here) --but just to remind us, that Universalism of any kind is a difficult and still radical faith.

I'm the only person I know that makes New Year's Resolutions. And at one point, I used to ask about about 50-60 folks if they made any. As noted, they ddin't.
There are actually good reasons not to make any, the most common being that folks feel bad about themselves when they can't live up to them. As the joke goes, breaking the resolution before noon on January 1.
To be honest, sometimes it's ok to feel bad about yourself. It's a good tool for growth and wisdom. Just don't overdo it. You did something wrong, feeling bad helps you motivate for change.
Some folks pick a resolution that is unrealistic. yes,like "I will become a rock star this year" and "I will become God's gift to women" not that somebody won't succeed on those resolutions, but they are ones of limited success.
If one wanted to really be "God's gift to women", then the first thing one might want to do is to find out what women want - and then go to congress and start lobbying. Ok, that's probably not what the person who wants to be GG2W would do, but that's at least a plan toward that goal.
Want to lose weight? what's the first step? exercise more - when will you do that - the goal should be "I will exercise for a half hour when i get home from work, despite how tired I am on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday" or "before I eat out, I will remind myself that i no longer have a reason to 'clean my plate'" or "after I eat, I will not have seconds or more food for at least 1/2 hour' or something that fits you, and that if you forget (you will), you can easily start over ago.
or if you resolution is to give more to charity, or save more; then you say things like "I will give $20 a week to a charity. I will do this Sunday morning" or "I will put $200 in savings when i get my paycheck". Concrete steps with the first step first.

Happy New Year

I gave my talk on D. B. Clayton at this years Universalist Convocation, showing them my 4 inch thick binder of material. Five days later, I find out more "important" information: he gave a talk at a local gathering of the Greenback Party. Now his son was active in the party (and it looks like everyone listed moved over to the Independent Republican Party), but does this mean that Father Clayton was a Greenback too? And of course, how much charisma did he have? Will I ever come to an conclusion on exactly who was Clayton? Probably not... but that's part of the fun.

I haven't been doing a systematic study of Clayton, just whenever it strikes my fancy. After the convocation, it began to become clear to me that I haven't done that work (or others) with much
discipline.

Listening to folks at the Convocation, I heard the word "spiritual discipline" and "spiritual study". Disciple? Study? Isn't this taking the fun out of it?

Are study and discipline bad words? I've been blessed with the hereditary gift of reasoning and memory, but cursed with the hereditary gift of poor attention-span; so I really dunno. I read books in bits and pieces, and always have. I often have 5-6 books at a time, that I am reading.... not including magazines, newspapers, cereal boxes, etc.
I certainly find this an interesting mosaic of thoughts and ideas. But does it lead to clear thinking on one issue? It does mean that it may take me months to read one short book.
(Novels are excluded). I've spent 50 years reading this way - can I muster up the discipline to change? I've gained 30 pounds in 2 years - one would hardly think I could even spell discipline.
So I'm going to try - both to lose weight (which won't be focused on here) and to study.

Now, I'm still going to be reading too many books at the same time (some things take time to change), but I'm going to pick deliberately two books to focus on. And yes, they're religious books.

One will be scripture or ancient wisdom. Pre-1500, so this copy of Declaratio doesn't count, nor does Swedenborg - at least not yet.
One will be Unitarian, Universaist, or Unitarian Universalist Association related.

I will be traveling a lot this month, so I will start with separate travel books A Calfiornia Pilgrimage (1915- Frederick A. Bisbee), and The Cotton Patch Version of Paul's Epistles (1968 - Clarence Jordan). At home, it will be the Harper Collins Study Bible, New Revivised Stardard Version (c1989) and the Biography of Hosea Ballou ( 1853-M.M. Ballou). I plan to read about a chapter of each a day. Ballou should take 16 days (minus the days i'm on the road).

The temptation is to say what I'll read next: the Lotus Sutra? George Rogers Commentary on Romans? But that might cause me to be distracted, so I won't say what's next.

I note this is part A; part B is always how we implement what we read.

Dear Ann and Abby:
I used to read your mother's advice columns in the paper when I was growing up, and now, I sometimes read y'all today. Growing up I felt that the column was quaint and old fashioned, and nowadays I don't know what to think: unrealistic and out of touch?
Of course with all these years gone, I may be the one who is quaint and out of touch.
I certainly am led to understand that the values I grew up with such as "fairness", "honesty", "empathy" and "generosity" are indeed quaint and out of step - but that's a different rant.
The other day I picked up the paper and snorted about the bad advice given. Today, my snort wasn't as bad or as long - indeed I mostly agreed, but thought the key thought was not given.

A woman wrote in, saying that she divorced her emotionally abusive husband 7 years earlier, he remarried first, she just recently. Her adult children blame her for the breakup, and she is concerned that she will miss opportunities to see her grandchildren, because of this conflict. Abby says to concentrate on her own life. Good advice as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough... because what's missing is the truth that you can't make somebody love you.

"You can't make somebody love you." is important enough that I'm staring a new paragraph for it. You can encourage people to love you, by doing various things to be loveable. You can most definitely do things that would make someone not love you; but you can't make someone love you. And after the years have gone by, it's even harder to do the various things to make one loveable. Debating with your children, spouse, parents, family, church, neighbors will not make them love you.

Aren't our children supposed to love us? Aren't our parents required to love us? How about our spouses - didn't they promise to love forever?

If we love someone hard enough, why can't they love us in return? What if we break our backs working morning to night, trying to win their love? What if we do all the things that we know they want us to do? What if we change ourselves so completely as to be a new person? What if we walk the straight and narrow?

If I had that woman in my office, I would ask her what's she done over the past 7 years to show her children that she still loves them. While we can't force someone to love us, we can show them that irregardless we still love them. Little notes, doing things, remembering holidays, birthdays, special occasions - not asking anything in return.

By the way, this doesn't apply to EXs. While I'm sure some EXs would appreciate you coming over to do chores, give them money, hop in the sack, mop the kitchen floor, etc.; as a general rule, this is not a good idea. A betting person would find it an easy bet that it would end bad. Don't do it.

As for our children and parents, we have to get our minds used to the idea that they might not love us, they might never love us, irregardless of what we do or have done. If the past post-trauma seven years of our showing them our love hasn't worked - then bluntly not much else will. We extend the olive branch, mean it, and we go on with our lives.

Happy Thanksgiving -
It is good that there is one special day a year for giving thanks. For although, it may be better to give thanks everyday, and several times a day - it's easy to forget, to rush, to expect things to be as they are, if not better.
So we are given one day a year for thanksgiving. Some people spend the time on getting together with family and friends, to eat, to watch parades and football games. Nothing wrong with that. To be in the joyful company of loved ones is a wonderful way to spend a day. To watch folks having fun is also a way to help us have fun.
But you can also be thankful when you're alone or not having fun. Fun is not a prerequisite to being thankful - just ask those folks with sinks of dirty dishes. Being alone does not necessarily mean being unwanted.
Sometimes we have to look ahead, to see the opportunities awaiting us. Sometimes we have to look behind, to see our accomplishments. The majority of us will never be rich or famous, but we will have things to be thankful for.

The question is never "Why me?", it's "Why not me?"
be thankful.

Over the next couple of days;  I hope to be sweeping the blog, clearing out the cobwebs,  and even changing the name - but not the address.  I began a regional denominational history blog (!) as my first blog, and then started this one to put my non-history stuff up. 

 I had  picked "UU-ing" as an obscure and oblique metaphor for the balancing act  that we all  have to live with in our lives.   It's been obvious that my seesaw has shifted positions.  In the spirit of my times, I had hoped to focus a lot on how living with one's feet in a denomination,  effects everything else. To that extent, it didn't work. I  missed diving down that road, and I couldn't enjoy the web scenery, cause I was to busy looking at the map, trying to figure out how to get back on that road..

It's been an interesting year as I live with increased health concerns and decreased capacities. Nothing major, but just the "normal" stages of life kicking me in the behunkas.  I hope that I find myself accepting these changes - both gracefully and even inquisitively. 
One of the things that I definitely believe is that there is no point in asking "why me?" - that the response to that is  "why not me?"    

And on that note - we'll see you down the road in just another mile or so.

There is a saying that "Justice delayed is justice denied."  Which of course means that we all want our injustice righted and as soon as possible.   Whether we are victims or those accused.

I am of course thinking of the case in Florida where a 17 year old unarmed male returning from a convenience store was shot by a gun toting man intent on stopping all crime in his neighborhood.   If it ended  here, we would  have a tragic and horrible event - but it went worse and became a complete tragedy.  The shooter claimed self-defense, and the police accepted that, and the shooter went home.

So the family of the dead child had to put away their grieving to put their energy into the legal and political aspects of the death.  Because officially their son was the aggressor and potential criminal, while the man who killed him was officially the victim of the alleged aggression.  I don't see how a family  can grieve and fight city hall at the same time.  To them, their son was killed - murdered by a man who seems to be getting away with it.
How can one deal with one pain, when you have to focus on another pain?  How does one heal even in the best of times?

and then there is the shooter and his family ...  It's clear to me that they are suffering as well, but with a different and no doubt more confusing  pain.  We can instinctively know   how a murdered child's family feels - how does a killer feel?

I've actually talked to folks who have killed and murdered, while they sat in jail wanting their day of
judgement - and I wonder if this man,who shot that child, thinks like they did.   If he feels the responsibility of
his deeds.  Or, if he deeply feels that he is the innocent victim, who only tried to do the right thing.  And when I think of murder, I of course think of the unsolved murder of my cousin.  Justice was delayed for some and denied for others.

When anyone is killed, whether by accident, manslaughter, or murder - there are no victors.   There is only the grieving.