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.

Notice: JavaScript is required for this content.No Fields Found.

Notice: JavaScript is required for this content.

Love with No Exceptions

250 years of Universalism

September 30, 1770 – the moment when Love caught Fire

Universalist Sestercentennial is Taking Wing

No matter what you call it – sestercentennial, semiquincentennial, bicenquinquagenary, or just plain 250^th – 2020 is a big year for Universalism.  It will be the 250^th anniversary of John Murray’s famous 1770 sermon in Thomas Potter’s chapel in  Good Luck, New Jersey.  We celebrate 2 and ½ centuries of Universalist contributions.

The full array of Sestercentennial Universalist Celebrations will be in 2020.

But the magic is already beginning. 

Love Notes Performance

An endearing performance based on the reading of love letters written by Judith Sargent Murray to her husband Rev. John Murray has been commissioned.  The performance provides a touching insight into the lives of Rev. Murray and his wife Judith, as well as tell tells the larger story of the birth of Universalism in America.

 

Universalist Convocation 2019 

The Universalist Convocation will begin the celebration with a kick-off event at Murray Grove (May 17 – 19, 2019).  Dynamic speakers, including Rev. John Buehrens, former UUA President,  will provide the background on the arrival of Universalism in America.  And . . . there will be a performance of Love Notes.

 

UU History Convocation

The Unitarian Universalist History Convocation (October 17 – 20, 2019) to be held in Baltimore will celebrate TWO significant events in UU history. The first celebration is the 200th anniversary of Rev. William Ellery Channing’s delivery of his “Unitarian Christianity” sermon that is better known as the Baltimore Sermon.  The next celebration is the 205th anniversary of Rev. John Murray preaching his first Universalist sermon in Murray Grove in 1770.   Murray Grove is a sponsor of this History Convocation.

 

Other Plans for Celebration

Plans are evolving to celebrate the 250th anniversary of John Murray’s epic sermon in Thomas Potter’s chapel in Good Luck, New Jersey September 30, 1770. This was the beginning of the thread of Universalist History in “the new world.” And the place where it happened is our oldest historic site. The full array of Sestercentennial Universalist Celebrations will be in 2020.

• Visioning in 2014 – February 27 through March 1, 2014.  A visioning meeting was held at Murray Grove to conceive the 250th Anniversary Celebration in 2020 of John Murray’s epic preaching of Universalism in Thomas Potter’s chapel in Good Luck, New Jersey in 1770 and the resulting 250 years of Universalism on this continent. The group was composed of 21 individuals who traveled from Portland, Oregon, Yarmouth, Maine, Chicago, Gloucester, Delaware, Virginia and many points in between, including two local non-Unitarian Universalist historians. Laurel Amabile facilitated the gathering.
• Next steps 2015-16.  Joyce and Richard Gilbert agreed to be honorary co-chairs. Liz Strong and Carol Haag agreed to be working chairs. Extensive outreach to discover who would be involved in design and planning.
• Working group 2017-2018.  Developed a working group that held monthly phone conference calls, clarified several projects, and developed connections with several other organizations
• Sestercentennial Group 2019-2020. Fifteen individuals with specific responsibilities are developing projects to celebrate Universalism for this century based on the rich heritage of the past.

Interested?

If you would like to contribute to the planning of the celebration, please use our Contact Us page to express your interest and talents.

 

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'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.

"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.

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."

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.”

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 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

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."

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.

After decades of attempts to build multi-cultural congregations, why are UU still so mono-cultured? Which is a way of asking why are UUs still so upper middle class white?
Because of course, we are (or at least appear to be).

And the usual answer is because UUs haven't done enough consciousness-raising, haven't attended enough workshops, haven't had enough of the veils lifted from our eyes. Some of that is probably true -
but it doesn't explain why there are some organizations that have not tried any consciousness-raising and workshops, that are multi-cultural. What have they done that has made them that way, what answers do they get when they ask how to be more multi-cultural? Why can't this work for us?

My guess is that there are multiple reasons, here's a slight handful:

There are people who don't like to associate with you, and you have to give them some reason to put up with you. It doesnt matter that you're nice and don't talk about your car, your job, your love of music from opera to bluegrass; they still have nothing in common with you, why should they put up with you? and the reasons for this could be that they are poorer than you, or richer than you, it's still "what reasons do they have to come down and sit near you?"

You call them sinners for eating meat, or lunchmeat with nitrates, or not eating organic.
You call them sinners for allowing their children to join the military, and not feeling quilty about their children's decision.
You look at them funny if they dress different - like wear a tie or a nice hat.
You grimace when they say they watch "American Idol" or Fox News.
The congregation all smile in unison when they enter the door, and somebody checks off a box next to "multi-cultural" on the visitors stat sheet (well not really, just seems that way)
why should these people come to your congregation?

What's the most multi-cultural place you know? Hospitals? K-mart? What makes these places multi-cultural? Workshops (and they do have them) help, but it's that they are filling an obvious need.
You want your congregation to be more multi-cultural?
Start by Filling a Need that isnt being met. Or Filling a Need better than others in the area.
Come up with reasons that people not like you would want to come and sit next to someone like you.





(comments rule: on topic, non-abusive only. The blog owner reserves the right to allow you to post your off-topic, abusive posts on your own blog. Sometimes the blog owner will allow you to post your almost off-topic, not quite abusive posts on your own blog - depending on blog owner's mood at the moment)

UNIVERSALIST CONVOCATION

held on May 15-17 (Friday evening through Sunday dinner- lunch) at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Birminham in Birmingham Alabama. For more information see the website at

http://nmuc.org/Convo/2009Convo.htm

(and yes, I'll be there)

I had some interesting experiences yesterday. I went to a Rural Heritage Festival in the next town over here in SC, and later went to a meeting with co-members of an environmental group concerning "mountain top removal" in WVA and SC responsibility for it. One of he major commonalities of them for me, was that the majority of folks that I talked to at both were farmers. We'd expect that at a Rural Heritage Festival, but at a meeting about coal mining?

Most of us here living in the United States do have rural heritage, although further back than this festival was celebrating. Up to the 1910s, most people in the US lived in rural areas. Currently 21% of the United States is still rural, with 4 states mostly rural (Mississippi, West Virginia, and Maine and Vermont). My father's family were farmers from at least the time they moved to North Carolina (around 1795 from Virginia), up to my grandfather. My father used to say that it's good that my grandfather was a "hobby farmer", because the farm never made any money. I grew up in a rural area (and still am in a rural county), the neighbors farmed - we didn't. I read my grandfather's copies of "Progressive Farmer" and "Organic Gardening and Farming" and later my own copies of "Organic Gardening" (they had spun New Farm into its own magazine) and "Mother Earth News" - but I never really developed my own green thumb. I do remember the neighbors plowing with mules, and the smell of spring: organic fertilizer on the fields. In my 20s, I spent five years leading month-long wilderness trips, such things as being able to build fires during a snowfall - while rural, its not what we think of as "rural heritage". Because, RH is nostalgia talk for farm life.

We bought some things at the RHF, wine from a "local" winery (is 76 miles local?), rice from the local rice farm (22 miles, less if we could go as the crow flies). The rice farm uses renewal energy, and is organic. The local organic sheep farm (15 miles) will be in town next week at the marketplace (bringing more items), so will buy our cheese then (no, its not sheep cheese). Other exhibits including "marsh tacky horses", fishing rods casting, medicinal plants, birds of prey, bluegrass, "water watch" , tips for gardening, recycled water barrels, boiled peanuts, and BBQ sauce (vinegar based for Eastern Carolina folks). The big tech thing was growing switchgrass for bioenergy and the hopes for farmers for that. the local papermill is building biofuel (corn however) mills.

the environmental meeting was held on Saturday night, at a home not that far distant so that I was able to go. There was someone down (literally) from the Appalachians to talk about Mountain Top removal - strip mining removal of mountains. and the removal of said coal here to SC (and various other places, SC is not in the top 5 - just the top 10), and what we can do about it. Informative, but i want to continue to talk about farmers - because i spoke with a couple of farmers there. Yes, farmers there to hear about non-farming environmental news. I listen to their concerns - and yes,as farmers they have big concerns : their lives and livelihoods depend on it. I find fascinating the farmers who have web pages and those who ship their products direct to consumers. Carbon footprints? Depends - at least from farm (to processor) to you makes it at least somewhat more direct, without the wondering the food goes through otherwise.

The small local library had an off-season booksale today, to lessen the amount of stock they had in their closet... The books were semi-separated, but not too well...

Here's what I got (for a total of $4.25) - keep in mind that these are impulse items, and that by rules of the this house for every two books in, three go out.

THE GOSPELS OF MARY - by Marvin Meyer with Ester A. DeBoer (2004 Harper Collins) - can one have enough gnostic Gospels? well, probably one can....but this book says it takes the gnostics and the gospels to give the real story of Mary Magadalene, Jesus' closest disciple.

NORTHWEST OF EARTH - By C. L. Moore (2007 Planet Stories) - short stories written in the 1930s by Catherine Moore in the 1930s for Weird Tales, Planet Stories, etc. This should be swashbuckling space opera - she's best known as the co-writer of Mimsy_were_the_Borogoves.

ALBERT SCHWEITZER: AN ANTHOLOGY - edited by Charles R. Joy (1947 Beacon Press, Harper and Brothers) this is an "relgious book club" edition of the book. a recent discsuuion on the Unitarain Universalist Historical Society email list, reminds me of his connection with UUs and his influence on the mid20th Century. He apparently hasnt aged well - but it still should be interesting to read his words.

AROUND THE WORLD WITH THE NATIONAL JEWISH OUTREACH PROGRAM - by Shimon Apisdorf (2000 National Jewish Outreach Program, Jewish Literacy foundation). The Jewish Calendar and Jewish Holidays

EXPLORDING JUDAISM: A RECONSTRUCTIONIST APPROACH - By Rebecca T. Alpert, Jacob J. Staub (1988 the Reconstructionist Press) this is a book about what it means to be Jewish to the Reconstuctionist - the 4th major group of Judiasm in the USA.

THE GREAT STILLNESS: TAO MEDIATIONS VOLUME 2 - By Bruce Frantzis (1998, 2001 North Atlantic Books, Energy Arts)

MAGIC TIME by Doug Marlette (2006 ) this is an autographed Advanced Reading Copy. Marlette (1949 -2007) was a pulitizer prize winning editorial cartoonist. I read his work and met him when he was the cartoonist for the Charlotte Observer (1972-1987) - I confess that Ive not read his fiction.

UNCLE SILAS by J. S. LeFanu (1899 - this edition by Dover) actualy publsihed in 1864 - this is considered to be one of the major works by one of the major writers of ghost stories in the 19th century. What I've read recently of LeFanu, I admit to enjoying. We'll see if I say the same for this.

so does anyone see the themes in all this? ;-)
and no, I wont be posting on what 10-11 books are removed from the house.....

Their website is non-informative (really really non-informative).
can anyone give me some good reasons to give money to the UUSC?

(my usual charities are individual churches, environmental groups, heifer international, and Kiva)

The blog UU Way of Life is taking questions asked of the candidates for UUA President. One being:

"What experiences have you had that help you deeply understand the mindset and values of another culture?"

My lack of excitement concerning the two candidates led me to skip their answers, but i did wonder about both the question and the questioner. What actually were they wanting to know about this question? What exactly are they meaning by "another culture"? Does one have to have special experiences to understand another culture? Does understanding other cultures make a person special?

Does understanding other cultures' values and mindsets make one worthy enough to be UUA President? I talk and interact with folks from a large variety of cultures - I hear people's dreams and visions for their and their family's future. I don't always agree with them (particularly those who's dreams include types of criminal behavior) but I understand it.
To a certain extent it's easy to get information from other cultures - you keep quiet and you keep hanging around. Understanding is a bit harder, because that takes listening - and thinking. Why do people say that - why do people act that? Not judging, but listening is the key to understanding. It's not the American way to listen. Of course if one wanted to be President of the UUA, you could just say that you attended several Cultural Competence workshops - we UUs love workshops .*
What makes us not aware of other culture's values? Arrogance and assumptions.
It's easy to be guilty of that.... Indeed it would be easy for me to bring out my own arrogance and assumptions to mention my fellow UUs arragonce and assumptions. Let me instead ask you to ask a question that Kim Hampton asked awhile back. (Actually I'm pharapraising her greatly) What books have your read this year by someone not of your culture?
- I'll go further, what music have you listened to that you don't normaly do? What TV show or movie? If you generally dont read best selling fiction, have you? If you never listen to hiphop or MTV or gospel, then do so. Now - as you might guess, that's not enough. You have to watch MTV without gasping for air, or gospel without getting your smelling salts. You have to listen and try to see clearly why the audience responds as they do.

I admit to the experinces that shaped me: my father lived in mainland China for about 4 years, I have family members in Thailand now. I grew up in a vastly poverty stricken area and most of my friends growing up were poor. As a kid we didnt know they were poor. i've lived with folks of different races for years. And to repeat the above: I've heard the dreams of those in many different cultures. To me to hear the real dreams is to hear who they are.
It isnt difficult to hear other culture's dreams, but you do have to open the door of your comfort zone.




* I assume everyone knows the joke about how St. Peter (at the golden gates of Heaven) finds UUs - he has a sign pointing to Heaven, and a sign pointing to a workshop and lecture about Heaven - and all the UUs go to the workshop.

"William Zanzinger killed Poor Hattie Carroll"
is the first line of the 1963 Bob Dylan tune. In that year William Zantzinger a young (24) man attacked Hattie Carroll (51) with a cane while she was doing her job serving in a hotel. She died as a result - and he has finally did 45 years later.

The song itself is considered a masterpiece of writing
- while one can argue (and folks do) with the exact interpretation of what happened,
but it a perfect example of while some details may not be inerrant, it is still truth.

this is a 1964 version - rough and uncomfortable--just like the song.

The Chaliceblog: Another day, another meme

I got two Memes "today", one from a facebook friends who told me to send it to 25 of my friends!
I dont even have 25 facebook friends.... so I'm taking this as a technicality out.

But then Chalice Chick memed the Universe... since Ive been bad about blogging, why not join the rest of the Universe?
(how could I not mention not having heat for 2 weeks, or joining thousands of my co-workers in having a mandatory furlough
(5 days during the next 6 months - MDs are being furloughed too, so Im not alone)

1- My favorite pastimes are reading, listening to music, nature watching, historic site visiting

2- If I weren't doing this current job, I would like to be a refrence librarian (of course it could be that I'm only hearing the good points of the job and not the bad points)

3-I am irrationaly worried about - my rational worries.

4- If I were the opposite sex - I'd be a different person with different experiences. Not so sure in what way, or how it would have effected me, but things would be different.

5-The thing I miss most about childhood - is talking daily with my brother, sisters, and parents. Enjoy it while you can folks!

6- I like to collect: way too much stuff: 1800s religious books and magazines, 1940s humor comic books, pre-war country music,
etc, etc.

7-Though I’ve never been there, I feel inexplicably homesick for - Riverdale. Reading too many Archie comics, but it's near the beach, near the mountains and wilderness, surports local buisnesses, has a burger joint with a jukebox

8 - I’ve never really liked to eat - watermeleon. I dont dislike it, I just cant eat it.

9 - When I have nightmares, they’re usually about - they're the standard anxiety dreams....

10- magazines subscibed to: gee, I get tons of magazines - Universalist Herald, UU World, Journel of UU History, Christian Century, Triangle, New York Review of Books, Archelogy, Biblicial Archelogy Review, Utne Reader, synthesis, Bluegrass Unlimited, Darlington Flag,
UCA newsletter, Progessive Christian, and that's just a start...

SR - who doenst have to tag, as the universe has already been tagged....

Rev Kalen Fristad is a Methodist minister, who works in both Iowa preaching to Methodists, and on the road speaking to others on universalism. He's also the chairman of the Christian Universalist Association. He will be in Trinity, NC on Sunday, November 9 and at Greensboro on Sunday, November 16

He preaches the more traditional Christian Univeralism (not a "death and glory" guy)
but since actions speak louder than words:

What's so funny about Peace, Love, and Understanding? was a song written by Nick Lowe in the mid-late 1970s - and was on an early hit album of Elvis Costello (1978). Lowe and his cohorts in Rockpile were the last true rockers that I personaly listen to and followed, as i veered off at that time to roots music: blues, bluegrass, etc.
By 1978 the Hippie era was already gone, and punk music, and Rolling Stone and other rock magazines would made fun of the Hippie sentimentality and Hippie idealism and of course would laugh at the leading Hippie rock bands, like the It's a Beautiful Day -- thus leading up to this song. While I'm not going to try to guess Lowe's meanings back then, I do want to show this recent (2007) version, played less rock style and more as a lament than an anthem.
I often wonder what songs would make good UU Hymnal songs -I'm not sure if this would fit, it's somewhat tied to the late 1970s, and the birth of globial cynicsm, and I generallly do prefer anthems. but still 30 years later, the question does really remains "What's so Funny about Peace, Love, and Understanding"....

Many years ago, a SF fan used to publish a small press magazine about his mail. and he did this on a monthly basis -- as odd as this sounds, this is probably an interesting experiment back in those days pre-email, but still an interesting snapshot of "who we are" and in that spirit, I present the few items of P.O. Mail that came in today.

One book: LINES OF CONTENTION: POLITICAL CARTOONS OF THE CIVIL WAR (2007) Lewin and Huff.
One magazine: NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS - NOVEMBER 6TH ISSUE -special election issue -
One License Plate - we get a new one every 4 years or so, after we pay our car tax and other fees. No envelop this year, just shrink wrapped with an address label and registration card.
one mail order catalog - Heifer International -

So what does this mail tell about me? And what does your mail tell about you?

sr

I live in a one-party state, so thanks to the Presidential election 8 years ago, I voted for third party Presentational candidates fours ago, and plan to do so this year as well. So I'm not praising my candidate when I post these videos. The last video does feature an Universalist (if a Primitive Baptist Universalist)

Are bad days and hard times coming? or are they already here?
the pundits are talking about recession and depression - the folks who remember the last Great Depression are now mostly deceased - it's been that long. Indeed we as a society no longer remember or agree on the lessons learned from then... Is it don't have debt or don't have frivolous debt? pay down your debt or save for retirement? or is it too late for that? There are already places with long lines waiting for gasoline...
Today I spent four hours dealing with an out-of-control barely teenage child. There was sex, drugs, dysfuctional families, knives, blood, death, - and manipulation that seems to work very well. There were hospitals that didn't want to bother, and hospitals that were out of beds.
Across the parking lot is a small park, across that is a store - where the owner was murdered yesterday evening. Rumors are that he was killed for fertilizer. Now you can do more than plant roses with fertilizer, but still, killed for fertrilizer....

Our lives are filled with bad days and hard times - because bad days and hard times are part of life. None of us will live forever in perfect health and perfect joy. We can however strive for that joy, despite the bad and the hard. We can smile and sing yet. Indeed that is some of our call - to help those find the joy and to help find that anchor in life's storms . As the song (in the UU Hymnal and other sources) goes: "My life flows on in endless song above earth's lamentation. I hear the real through far off hymn that hails a new creation. Through all the tumult and the strife I hear the music ringing. It sounds and echoes in my soul. How can I keep from singing?" When your bad times hit you, look around for the singer and the music.

One of the big UU bloging topics this week is cultural misappropriation, and more exactly the use of that term in the upcoming revision of the UU “Principles and Purposes”.
The idea is one of those things that sounds good on the surface, but may not be. Because where will the line be drawn and who draws it?
Let me give an example from the other week. Person A was talking about a Native American cultural item that they were using that just wasnt what it used to be.... Person B jumped in all upset about cultural misappropriation of the item and chewed the Person A out. The major problem was that the item was given to Person A by a close family member, who was Native American. Is this cultural misappropriation or not?
This issue was brought up first by Rev James Ford - who questioned if the entire UU Buddhist community might be alleged by some to be guilty of cultural misappropriation. I've been to a Passover Seder, invited by a giyoret. Am I guilty of cultural misappropriation for accepting the invitation? In the UU hymnal, we have changed wordings from the original of certain songs - aren't all of those hymns cultural misappropriation? Since many of our Congregations are not Christian, can we sing Christian hymns without it being cultural misappropiation? One worried blogger even wondered if this whole thing was an attempt to force the UUA back to its old vision of Unitarian and Universalist Christians. - because that is the UUA's heritage.
The other worry with this whole thing, is that like most of the rest of the proposed P&P, it's full of legalize and academic speak. While the whole thing might be to force UUs not to treat it as a creed, what if they do? Do we want to affirm our Anti-Cultural Misappropriation every Sunday (assuming we could still meet on Sunday that is )?
Rev Ford nicely suggest a change of wordage to what is essentially "be sensitive". This is something that I could affirm, something that sends a positive message rather than a negative message. As for the whole idea of cultural misappropriation: we can simply remember that "if you dont know what you're talking about: dont ."

1 member and 1 visitor has died and 4 members of the Tennessee Valley UU were critically wounded this morning at 10:15 AM by a gunman with a shotgun, while children were singing songs from the musical Annie Jr. The gunman was overpowered by members of the congregation.
The member who died delibertly shielded others from the attack.

the folks in Knoxville will need whatever help we might be able to give.

update: www.wbir.com seems to have the best updates
http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=61322&provider=top#comments

It's a little known fact that I lived in NC for a few years, I also rarely mention that my dad's family lived in NC from c1702-1952 (when my parents moved to SC). NC generally gets a nod over SC for progressiveness and social justice ---- even this weekend I had someone (in NC) tell me about the stench one smells when one goes south of the line.....
.... but neither of us thought of Jesse Helms. by 1972 when Jesse was elected, he could have considered Strom Thurmond a liberal - and certainly by the time Jesse retired - Strom would have been liberal (comparison wise - Strom was always a politician and pragmatist). Jesse and the then majority of NC voters believed in him, and believed as he did.....

http://www.politicker.com/jesse-helms-and-doug-marlette
a few cartoons


I well understand those who would cry for vengeance and hellfire for such a sinner - and such an unrepentent sinner - I note that the President of the United States said that
'Jesse Helms was a kind, decent, and humble man and a passionate defender of what he called "the Miracle of America." So it is fitting that this great patriot left us on the Fourth of July. He was once asked if he had any ambitions beyond the United States Senate. He replied: "The only thing I am running for is the Kingdom of Heaven." Today, Jesse Helms has finished the race, and we pray he finds comfort in the arms of the loving God he strove to serve throughout his life. "

How could anyone who ever met Jesse call him humble? seriously?

As a sometime Ultra-Universalist (those who believe in "death and glory") I think he may indeed be in the arms of the loving God, and if so, God is indeed comforting Jesse -- because Jesse is having to deal with the enormity of the wrong and sin that he has done and has fostered through the land. I have no idea how much suffering one would want to do for atonement. Some might argue eternity would not be enough. But I have no doubt that when Jesse saw God', he did indeed suffer at the enlightenment of his wrongdoing....
I would almost have sympathy......
I do hope that we of this world will now suffer less...

Like many of us, the temptation is to help those poor wrong souls who write all those things on the internet. It's doubly important when those poor misguided souls are UUs! Horrors that we don't help them see their folly..... why they might be embarrassed by their comments when they become as smart as us....
I say sometimes the best way to stay UU is to never talk to another UU - that way you will only be offended by what you hear in the pulpit....
this is of course exaggeration for comic effect, but only slight exaggeration..
while all groups and organizations have their conflicts, they usually can agree on the foundations of the group. UUs can't do that, as we cant agree on a core....
What brings this up to day are the usual shouting matches on a couple of UU mailing lists, with the usual response by some that they will just pick their ball up and go home. A blog response by someone very upset who wants the UUs to do something (I cant really tell what - other than we dont need to criticize what they like) -
I am resisting the UU tradition and jumping in a discussing / arguing back.... by looking at the b below cartoon - a new classic --
One does have to pick and chose what is important, not just spend one's life throwing water on someone who is trying to do the same to you....
Another reason to be thinking this way is all the UU websites Ive looked at this week because of the UU discussion that the spouse and myself had over which UU congregation to visit this weekend - we will be driving near 6 congregations having services (which is pretty good for the south) - the two sermon topics I liked best are congregations that we've already visited (the spouse thinks we need to spread our greatness around to all UUs) - of the remaining 4, one service is very local oriented, one has a speaker who specializes in spirituality of wealth building and two are on paleontology! Hard to chose -
So we suspect that we will be wealthier when we come back home ---
(in all honesty, that is the speakers specialty, not what they will be speaking on).
So, how many wrong statements are in today's UU-ing? You need to write in and correct me - after all we can't have anybody wrong on the internet, can we?

ADDED LATER: The current issue (July 15th 2008) of THE CHRISTIAN CENTURY has a short editorial on "Family Squabbles" or denominational squabbles. "Sometimes we think of denominations as families"; to which the late Jack Stotts, theologian and seminary president - pointed out that the families in the Bible tended to be dysfunctional. So all as it ever was!

I got the quiz from Ms. Kitty's blog (only because I read it prior to James' Monkey Mind blog).
I just wonder what kind of mood or whatever I was in when I took this quiz... A Guardian Angel?
Maybe that is actually meant to be a type of hell? Other folks get to rest in the cool cool ground, or strum those harps - but I get to hang around earth till all my loved ones have died?
I get more responsibilities even after death?? and they say G*d doesn't have a sense of humor....

For some reasons I'm getting a fair number of hits by folks (or by one persistent folk)
looking for info on Unitarian Universalist Seminaries.
Ok, I admit to have a masters degree, but it wasnt from a seminary

you want
Meadville-Lombard
Starr-King

and while not an UU seminary, I believe Harvard now has an UU chair.
many UU seminarians go to non-UU seminaries.
You may want to check this out - lots of helpful info aboput what to do.
http://www.uua.org/leaders/leaderslibrary/ministerialcredentialing/index.shtml
including a list of acceptable non-UU schools for UU ministers.

SR, MEd

Many of the songs in the UUA hymnal are hard to sing by folks singing in the pews; so my first thought for hymnal is "can almost anyone sing it?" - then of course, I like anthem type songs.
and yes, most of these below are folks songs....

these songs ought to be in the UUA hymnal

"Turn Turn Turn" Hard to believe that we dont have this song by UU member Pete Seeger in our hymnal. this could be easily sung by all UUs....

"Lean on Me" this old -1972- standard by Bill Withers would fit most of our humanistic congregations- this or the Carole King "you've got a friend'

'Wasn't that a time" this old Lee Hayes song - Hayes knew his anthems and what got folks singing (he was a Methodist minister if memory serves me right) - this would fit the social justice crowd, wouldnt it? Or maybe his (and seeger's) "If I had a Hammer", maybe a bit cliche for folks of my generation (no idea if the younger folks would know it or not)

we like spirituals (and note some of these might be in the hymnal) - how about "Rock-a my Soul", "sinner man", "standing in the need of prayer", "walk in Jerusalem" "were you there?"
most of these have words that even those of us who read ahead would still be able to sing....
-- (note that I feel the words soul, sinner, prayer, Jerusalem and crucifixion are neutral -
I would possibly be wrong = rock-a-my-spirit, bad human, standing in the need of goodvibes,
etc)
"Give me Oil in my Lamp"

no doubt I'll think of some more later on -
please feel free to add your own (on your blog or mine) songs that ought to be in the UU Hymnal

(and yes, I know copyright laws and payment issues would keep some of these out, but
"turn turn turn", really?)

Ok, we went to the Universalist Convocation in North Oxford MA, and we vacationed there and back - a few thoughts about the trip there and back.....

we had lots of discussions about flying vs driving vs train riding. My partner doesnt feel they can do any stop overs due to inner ear problems, and the direct flights - were either early in the AM or late in the PM. We opted for the flight early in the AM, which meant staying overnight near the airport - I spent way too many hours at work that morning (was supposed to leave at 1 PM, left at 6!) -- bought a new GPS unit, but hadnt had time to learn it too well (if using it once to drive 1 mile is using it at all).
Got to the airport at 6 AM, no problem with our flight. I havent flown in 12 years, so havent experienced the new security measures. Two hour flight versus two day car or train trip, made it much more convent. The waiting at the airport and at the car rental place (we got a trainee who took forever and kept trying to upgrade us, despite our having prepaid). The rental car asessary device (or whatever they call the former cigarette lighter) wasnt working, which meant that we couldnt use the GPS! - and we got bamboozled by bad signage in Boston) -
I had dropped an email to the Gloucester UU church (that John Murray preached at) - had hoped to see the interior - but they closed early that day - (we'll be nice and say they didnt get my email - and not that it was a direct result of my threatened visit). We did have some delicious halibut in a local restaurant. We then took headed to Worcester and our hotel in Auburn. I had some not-so-nice things to say about MA drivers, but I've been corrected by MA drivers to say that what we experienced were Eastern MA drivers. My apologizes to central and western MA drivers, who did seem to be much nicer.
Thursday, we went to Walden Pond - Put a rock on the cairn on the site of the cabin, and I bought a back issue of the Journal of the Thoreau Society, and the partner got a sweatshirt and gifts for the staff at her job. I discovered that the bean field that Thoreau worked at, was white bush beans - perfect for Boston baked beans? Then on to the battlefield at Lexington and Concord. Yes, I stood at the spot where Paul Revere was captured. I admit to being impressed by all the Unitarian Universalist churches - there seemed to be one in almost every town.... living in an area where there is one for every 70 miles, this is impressive. looked at the various graves - the Alcotts, Emerson, Thoreau, etc at the Sleeepy Hollow cemetery in Concord. We had a nice meal at the WAYSIDE INN (in Sudberry?). This is where the setting of TALES OF THE WAYSIDE INN is, so the poem "the Midnight Ride of Paul Revere" is told here (by the Innkeeper). It is also where the Universalist Fraters meet annually. Ate Indian Pudding.
Friday, we went up to see the waterfalls in North Central MA, Royalston and Doane - close enough to New Hampshire, we drove up there to say we did. Friday was also the start of the Universalist convocation - held at the grounds of the Barton Center for Diabetic Education. This was a former Universalist Woman's Association and UUWF property. The UUWF sold it about ten - fifteeen years ago.
i'll forgo comments on the convocation itself for a later post.
Sunday after the convocation was over, we and the Rev Barry Whittmore went to the historic site at Lowell (where the UU connection was the Universalist semi-connected "Lowell Offering" magazine of "Mill Girl writings"), and then up to Lawrence - where they have no easily seen historic markers - but we knew some anyway. Bread and Roses. The GPS was working, after being charged on the laptop, making finding things easier.
Monday we took the train to Boston (avoiding the Eastern MA drivers) - ate Boston Baked Beans, and toured the UUA building. Met friends there, in the building! Did a walking tour, saw the Charles Street Meeting House (now businesses), Saw the outside of King's Chapel (it's closed on Monday in May), and various other historic sites.
Tuesday, took the scenic drive through the rural area of Connecticut in their "last green valley". lots of farms. The General Greene historic site in Rhode Island was closed, so we went to the highest point in RI and signed the logbook instead.
Wednesday, drove early to Logan Airport - the gas station where we were to fill up the rental car was blocked off by construction, but the GPS found us another with no problem. Returning the rental car itself was easy too. So we got to the airport way early. the flight back was very bumpy - just glad it wasnt that bad on the way north - or i would have been anxious about the return flight.
now all i have to do is catch up on my sleep.....

Ok folks, the recent UU Blog discussions are about the ex-Independent Affiliates and the de-funding of the National UU Youth programs.

Jess's Journal does a nice post on her initial feelings about the National UU Youth Program.
this sums up my own feelings so well, that I dont even have to. As I stated there, I almost wish she will turn her post around and explain why the National Cons are good for both individuals and the UU as a group. Because that's what I really would like to hear - yes, I'm a do gooder and I like to think organizations that I belong to, do good.
But all missionary work (and that's what the National UU Youth Program is) has to convince the donors that it's doing the job it was intended to. Or at least, trying hard to do the job it was intended to. And if the program is worth doing, and has lots of support, why aren't people doing fund raising right now? Saying - "if the National UUA doesnt fund it, then we will, because it is worth saving and worth doing". Why isn't this being done?

I'm a member of some of the former independent affiliates. This year, like last year, I paid my dues and looked at and bought books and nicknacks from them. If these former affiliates send a fund-raising letter to me, I would toss in a (small) check, because the work they do is important to me. Would I like it, if the UUA would restore the privileges to my favorite IAs that membership had for them? Sure. I like the UUA to fund them as well, and let me win the lottery so I dont have to work anymore, while you're at it. But each dollar spent on something means you dont have a dollar for something else. So when I support the UUHS, this means that I have to do without something else-no eating out, no good wine, no Rocky and Bullwinkle DVDs.
I personally feel that the Board was too sweeping when they removed virtually all the IAs. I know they were expecting some of them to unite in common ground, but that hasnt happened. On the other hand, the sky hasnt fallen on the ex-IAs either. Most or all still exist - even a full year after the cut. And i admit that I supported some cuts - but I know I couldnt say where to draw the line....
I dont have much vested in these issues. Or do I? I'm at least putting a little money where my loud mouth is. If these issues mean something to you, I hope you will do the same.

As mentioned below, I now have more money. and part of what I was going to do with to save - (I have just a decade before retirement!) and increase my charitable contributions. I had planned to just increase the charities I contribute to now: various Unitarian Universalist, Universalist, and Environmental groups. But I decided to start with a semi-charity Kiva. Kiva is a group that provides loans to loan groups in countries that loan to poor folks who need loans for their business.
the loaner and the loanee make money. Kiva and you (the contributor) don't - although if you are lucky you get your money back. So you can loan it to someone else.
Interest rates can be high (but my credit cards were higher than the one Im loaning to), so not a perfect plan - but seems reasonably fair. Apparently a lot cheaper than the usual loans - and a lot cheaper than the payday loans people here in the USA.
see my link to the right, or go to www.kiva.org
make sure you read their FAQs -

I have been grumpy about UU stuff on other's blogs, but not here. This is because I'm saving the nice stuff for my own blog. You can call me Mr. Knucklehead elsewhere, but here I am Mr. Sunshine.
and what is it that has made me Mr. Sunshine? ah, those of you reading the title above know the answer: I am debt free!
after being in debt for 12 years! (actually longer if you include student loans - so we'll say 22 years!), I am debt free. For the past 8 years, I have been putting aside 1/3 of my income to reduce debt load. and finally I am here ! Just in time to go on vacation !
Sometime in the early Summer, I will have to see what to do with the "extra" dough, but as of now - I see 1/3 (of the 1/3) going to help a family member reduce her debt; 1/3 going to savings, and 1/3 going to charities - it is about time to start tithing again isnt it?

(oh and folks, have a better plan for graduate school and divorce living, OK?)

I found this a very interesting take on 2008 UUA as well as the 1923 UCA.....
sr


Rev Stanley Manning was the director of the Universalist Church's Young Person's department back in 1923 , and among other things, he wrote a weekly coloumn for the weekly denominational paper, THE UNIVERSALIST HERALD. In a column in early June, he wrote that the depression in Georgia was forcing Universalist ministers to move north, as the local churches couldn't afford to pay them a living wage. He suggested that they do something about this.

++++++++++++++++++June 23, 1923
SOME OTHER SUGGESTIONS
The article published two weeks ago on this page and entitled "S.O.S" has let to some rather interesting "Comebacks."
Some have said, "That's the thing; we must help." Others have said, "This is something for the General convention to undertake." Still others, and the great majority, have said nothing.
The Director of Young People's Work has no desire to press this matter except to bring to the attention of the Church the fact that here is a problem whih our brothers and sisters in the South can not solve without our, at least temporary, help.

ARE WE CONGREGATIONALISTS OR EPISCOPAIANS?
These "Comebacks" are illustrative of two different types of mind among us. The congregational mind utilizes a denominational organization only for doing those larger taks which are beyond the possibilities of a local church. It feels perfectly free to undertake any sort of enterprise on its own responsibility, without consulting "the men higher up."
The episcopalian (or presbyterian) mind awaits the initiative of the larger organization, and then undertakes to perform the task assigned.
There are advantages in each, but success depends upon a different set of qualifications in either case.
If we are congregationalists (psychologically) we must have the daring to initiate and carry through projects that challenge us to larger tasks than we have ever undertaken heretofore. It was in the hope that some of our churches might do this to the extent of adding to their salaried workers a missionary pastor and send him to a Southern circuit, that the S.O.S. call was sent out.
The fact of the matter is that our church polity is a combination of these two: it is neither ultra-congregational, in which the local parish can do as it may please, regardless of all the rest, nor is it wholly episcopalian or presbyterian, in which the governing individuals or organizations are absolute. But if we take this fact as an excuse for "passing the buck" when an opoportunity opens or a call for help comes, so that the General Convention officials say "Our hands are tied: we can not appropriate money which the churches do not give;" and the churches say, "this is what we have a General Convention for; it is the convention's affair, and not ours" - well, long ago someone had something to say about those who were asked, "Why halt ye so long between two opinions?" We must make up our minds to be a mighty army and move like one both in our ordinary work and likewise when an emergency arises, or we muct be ready to meet cases of urgent need by special and if necessary extra-legal methods, moved by the universalism of our faith and not by what our next-door neighbors do or fail to do.
My own personal preference is for the former method; I would rather be a buck private in this army, to go or come or stay, to give or to withhold, as my commanding office might order; and I should like him to have the reserve of power necessary to meet emergencies, as does the President of the United States, for instance - only I should want the right, under proper restrictions, to prevent ill-considered or hasty action, to return this C.O. to the ranks and elevate some one else to that position.
But whether we are congregationalists or episcopalians or presbyterians, let us be univesalists, and go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

In about a month, I will be heading off to the Universalist Convocation in North Oxford, Ma.
(still not too late to join us there - see http://nmuc.org/Convo/ ).

However, I will be there a few days before and after the Convocation and am looking for things to do in central Ma (or somewhere else reachable from the North Oxford area). Since I will be busy from Friday evening to Sunday afternoon, Sunday Church visiting wont be one of the things - except for an evening service.....

any suggestions? (and yes, i am thinking of some of the typical UU tourist sites - but feel free to suggest them anyway).

sr

On Palm Sunday I gave a sermon about Easter week, stopping with the story of the arrest of Jesus- with emphasis on the redemption of Peter. Peter, as many of you recall, denied Jesus three times that evening. Our small congregation also had communion, service taken mainly from the old Red Hymnal.

I wanted to go to Church today, Easter Sunday, so we drove 100 miles up to Newberry leaving a big carbon footprint at Clayton Memorial, Lynch's Woods, and various business on the way home. We also talked religion on the long drive back. The sermon and service was excellent, very inspiring - well worth the trip to me. I just wish I could go every Sunday (hey, at least at 200 miles round trip, I have a perfectly reasonable excuse). There was communion there as well, it was Easter Sunday after all. The fellowship was also nice.

I went out and mowed the lawn on Saturday -
a perfect chore for a day between a day of sorrow and and a day of joy.
- and a good sermon point for some year in the future - what do we do on the Saturday in-between?

But today is the day of joy - the time to the do the Snoopy happy dance -
- I personally feel that the Easter story is part of the bookends to the important messages in between the covers; but never mind that today, because it's time for celebrating - I can see the dove carrying the twig in it's beak - the eternal hope, the greater hope, the knowledge that there will be a new and glorious day someday. Something to give us hope. That's part of the joy of Easter ......

Happy Easter everybody!

as I try to bring life back to a smidgen of normalcy, its therefore time to blog!
and what better place to start than by asking:

who am I?
is probably the fundamental question that we ask ourselves, the deep soul searching question for meaning and truth. Thanks to the internet, we can save a lot of time and energy and just take a quiz to find out where we stand!

Ok, I'm half joking - because using the non-Fox Belief-o-Matic, I see that I believe in the belo.
In all the years Ive taken this test, I've never scored below 95% in the UU category - Liberal Quakers and Reform Judaism are always in the top 20 percentile. Usually Neo Pagan is way down the list (wonder what i said this time), and Reform Judaism and Mahayana is sometimes in and sometimes out. Mainline Christianity is sometimes in, but out this week.

http://www.selectsmart.com/religion/
Unitarian Universalism 100%
Liberal Quakers 88%
Reform Judaism 83%
Neo Pagan 81%
Mahayana Buddhism 80%

We end up with two questions from this.
If I am usually 98-100% pure Unitarian Universalist,
can we therefore use me to help define what UU actually is??
and what do these 5-6 religious views have in common? Because by looking at the commonality, then I have good grounding at discovering what I believe; which may tell me who I am....

the old joke that it's the young folks who search for meaning in their lives, because the old folks are too busy trying to survive their lives has some element of truth. My search has no desperation, no angst, no pain - part of that may be because that I managed to deal with the pain, angst, etc many years ago, or it maybe that my life has been blessed, etc. It may even be that I'm kidding myself and that I will be dealing with an existentialist crisis at any moment - indeed thinking about it, that might be quite possible ... If I do, that will just be another piece in the question of who am I?...

As readers of my other blog might have guessed, I've been way too busy to blog coherently. So let me put the Washington Universalist Avowal down below: and how would you modernize it?

The Washington Declaration of 1935

The bond of fellowship in this Convention shall be a common purpose to do the will of God as Jesus revealed it and to co-operate in establishing the kingdom for which he lived and died.

To that end, we avow our faith in God as Eternal and All-conquering Love, in the spiritual leadership of Jesus, in the supreme worth of every human personality, in the authority of truth known or to be known, and in the power of men of good-will and sacrificial spirit to overcome evil and progressively stablish the Kingdom of God.

Neither this nor any other statement shall be imposed as a creedal test, provided that the faith thus indicated be professed.

I just read that a "process observer" watches over the UUA board and board committee meetings to make sure (among other things) that the meeting is anti-oppressive.
Wow, having somebody watching you at all times to make sure Iyoudont make a slip isn't oppressive?



- well ok, this is possibly a minor form of oppression.
And yes, I know that if everyone on the board joyfully and gratefully agrees to being monitored, then it can't be oppression.
And there may be a good reason for the Board not to trust itself to behave. No, no -Seriously!
But it sure does make for a good opportunity to be snarky, doesn't it?.

I see that the Universalist National Memorial Church, UU has finally adopted their new
Declaration of Faith - which has been under discussion for the past year.
While it's not something I would write or state as my favorite, I personally think I could live with it. Of course this brings up the question of what declaration would I write.

www.universalist.org
***********************************************************************

In faith and freedom, we are called
to bring hope and healing to the world,
so that all may rejoice in God’s grace.

I believe in
the universal love of God,
the spiritual authority and
leadership of Jesus Christ,
the trustworthiness of the Bible
as a source of divine revelation,
the need for repentance
and forgiveness of sin,
and the final harmony
of all souls with God.

A couple of days ago, my spouse asked me when I was going to add RSS to my blogs, and I told her that they've always had rss. She looked surprised and told me she would had them to her RSS reader (I think she uses bloglines - i just use the Google reader).
so this means that I now have a new fulltime reader, of course this means that everything I saw could be used against me, right?
- so watch me quickly delete old blog posts :-)

It's been rough this winter, so I havent had much desire to think about great posts for UU-ing. It's easier when i come home to just read a bit of email and do some reading.....

and I just know that you want to know what I've been reading? right?

VOGUES IN VILLAINY: Crime and Retribution in Ante-Bellum south Carolina (1959).
One of those books that just showed up in the house. This is somewhere between scholarly and popular history. Not dry enough for scholarly, and not lurid enough for current popularity. I didnt see any well known SC Universalist or Unitarian names. It does have another suggestion that the neighborhoods where the U and U churches were in Charleston, were less than savory. The book also tells us how much better that SC has gotten in fairness and crime in 100 years.


"the Shack" (c) 2007 William P. Young
an interesting book designed for (i guess) the more liberal
Evangelicals -where "God is presented as a loving and large black woman named
'Papa', Jesus as a laid back and friendly Middle Eastern man, and the Holy Spirit as a calm and cool Asian woman"
it almost made the trinity sensible (to me that is!), and it does explain why
evangelicals evengalize all the time even at the drop of a hat, (as if we didnt already know).
the book itself is about the murder of a small child , and
her depressed father going to the shack where she was murdered and
meeting the Trinity. With a plot like that, it would be easy to slip,
but I think it mostly succeeds. You might check the reviews on Amazon, to see if this would be your type of reading. I think it's a good view at this type of viewpoint.

I've read a stack of Jack Chick comics and tracts, and while this is also a good view of this type of viewpoint, it's a bit harder wading. Or is that too mild? Yes, I guess it is. You can go read a Chick tract on his website, if you havent had the experience.
For a while I was trying to figure out the range of some of the conspiracy theories: Mormon and Mason and Catholic and Muslim and Satanists and who else working together? However I figured it out fairly quickly. Everyone who disagrees with the author is engaged in a conspiracy to damn souls. It's a tough world we live in.

I always wanted a copy of the old socialist newspaper, APPEAL TO REASON, so I was delighted to pick up a copy for the price of a modern magazine - an issue from 1912, where the Appeal was almost up to 1/2 million weekly subscribers. this issue was an Teddy Roosevelt issue (not sure when Includes a space on the cover where the US post office refused to let them run a particular article on TR. Im still reading this, so not sure if this is pre-Bullmoose or not.

Lastly, I was reading one of my old posts on my history blog, where I comment about spam comments. At that time I mentioned that I would generally remove commercial spam, and that is when I put all comments to be moderated. I said I thought I wouldnt have to moderate more than that. Yes, I was young(er) and naive back then. For the record: since this blog is my house, I have the responsibility to keep it in what I think is reasonable shape. If you want to libel someone else, use your own blog, not mine. Thomas Jefferson is alleged to have said that "Freedom of the Press is owning one". Since almost anyone can do their own blog, I see no reason to let mine be hijacked by someone else.

I've gotten some Will Rogers films recently. You know, nice guy that he is, he never met a man he didnt like. It's been awhile since Ive seen one of his films (like decades), but I do have some old Will Rogers for President material that I enjoyed reading. I suspect that a good book of his old columns would be fun (maybe they would need to be annotated, but it would be fun." I see that the actual quote was about Trotsky and Rogers said about him "I bet you if I had met him and had a chat with him, I would have found him a very interesting and human fellow, for I never yet met a man that I didn't like." I can believe that, almost anyone can act likable.

Mom To the Left wrote her list for 2007, and it makes sense to fit mine here.....


List your favorites from 2007:

Book: Here If You Need Me
Movie (DVD): Popeye The Sailor Volume 1
(although Im working on Treasures from American Archives III)
TV Show: none, I watched no TV shows this year
unless you count the DVDs of the Flatt and Scruggs Show,
Song: Now Be Thankful (Richard Thompson)
Singer/Group: Alison Krause
Christmas Gift: only present was the DVD of Oswald the Lucky Rabbit (the spouse and I buy an ancestry subscription)
Dinner Food: Spinach pirogies, Porkchops with balsamic vinegar
Snack: wasabi covered anything
Ice Cream Flavor: Cherry
Drink: diet vault (can someone say caffeine....)
Color: green
Hobby/Relaxing Thing: reading
Toy: my new computer

Where did you go on vacation?
Universalist convocation in Bellville Ohio (and visited Berlin and Wooster and Ohio Amish country and my mother's family roots in Lutheran country)
ALA meeting in Washington DC (not being a member, I spent my time at the husker's room, also went to the Universalist National Memorial Church)
Also McCormick and Myrtle Beach SC for weekends

What is your proudest accomplishment this year?
Giving two sermons in North Carolina.

What will you remember this year for?
giving my first two sermons to a neutral audience.

Make 1 New Year’s Resolution!!
spend less

how about you?

Today is Christmas Eve - forecast is for more rain ---it will be a nice 64 degrees later today.

I've been quiet, making a few comments on other blogs when I have time, but not doing much here. The reason being: Ive been busy.

My mother has been in the hospital for the past three weeks, and after work I have been there. As her health care power of attorney, I had to make tough decisions about her care, this means I had to make tough decisions about her life. There turns out to be no good decisions, just tough decisions. I had the fun of having a friend of the family lambaste my decision (which was to let her leg be amputated).
I did get some reading done while in the hospital though.... the rest of us are doing fine. My mother survived a year, so she's a tough woman.....

Ive got one gift under the tree - so I guess I havent been completely bad this year.
Ive got a couple gifts I bought for myself coming, which you're going to see if you read my southern Universalist history blog (assuming I get the time to read them anytime soon).

In the New Year, we plan to go to the Universalist Convocation in North Oxford Mass in May. Hopefully I'll be less quiet by then.

Over on Dan's Yet another UU blog, the question becomes "What makes for Kick-Ass worship".
I responded, maybe not too helpfully... ok, no "maybe" about it: I responded unhelpfully with the observation that one person's good service is another person's bad service. And admitted that I cant stand youth services and large churches. Those of things that would make me stay at home. If I knew the youth or their parents, I would be more inspired. But then I dont like drum circles either.... and large churches throw way too many things that I don't care for. Say can one bring binoculars to large churches? I should mention that I dont go to large concerts either.

Shelby Meyerhoff lists several great things to make up for my post
"Music that is vibrant and accessible, Preaching that has a clear message that is relevant to listeners’ lives, Worship leaders who are warm, friendly, joyful and expressive" and a few more - which you can find at Dan's website.

As I think back to a service I provided to a group in NC last week, I wonder how sucessful I was. I can certainly see what should have been better - audience feedback certainly told me what they found interesting. And what I should have emphasized - and If I ever give this sermon again - I'll have a better understanding of what works. (My grandfather had a list of many sermons and when and where he gave them - it helps to avoid repeating it at the same place). Obviously the questions and comments that people gave, were what they found most interesting, and most inspirational....

for someone who only gives 6-8 sermons a year, Im impressed by the pros who can give 52- or more a year!

I find songs very important, both in front of the pulpit and behind it. They engage the congregation - I like loud numbers with loud singing - anthems. I like the participation, being part of things.

I have sick for the past few days -
- and have just gotten out of the sick bed to go to be with family.

-- it was rough. Nobody was in a particular pleasant mood -

not us, because we have been sick.
not nieces and nephew - just because we're their aunt and uncle.
not brother and sister and spouses - because they were trying to fix up the house
and now have to figure out what do we do with all this stuff
not my mother, because this is now a year since her stroke that led he to leaving her house to live in a nursing home and not be able to think clearly and not to live her life the way she wanted to.

"why are we here?" I was asked, and the answer is because they are family.
In a few years, we wont be able to spend thanksgiving with them anymore,
they will be hoping to have their children come to visit them on holidays then,
we're here because we share a history with them,
... oh, and because we love them, and they love us - they're family.
They're not perfect, but they're family.
And Im thankful for them....

I have a sermon to give in three hours, but instead of finishing it - Im puttering with music videos - hey, if they want a fancy sermon, we can get a professional rather than an amateur to give it. and Im thinking, I might have to do a "John Murray" and just flesh out my topic at the time I give it.

"A Heart Needs A Home" was written by Richard Thompson and song (in this video) by him and his then wife, Linda Thompson. They were devote Muslims at the time of this video,
and it is believed by some that this songs represents Richard Thompson's conversion experience. The words are vague enough that it could fit about anything with an influence on our lives, that fills that yearning. Knowing that it's really a religious song adds a different element to it.

Fast Payday Loans

OK, so this blog is written on a college level (and my history Southern Universalist blog is written on a post-graduate level), is this enough to make this a real UU blog?

sure, why not?
do you have a more surefire method?


(note that the force ad has had it's link changed to my other website - so sorry no loans there, just southern Universalist history.....)

I'm to write a sermon for next Sunday - it will be our Thanksgiving service (we won't have one the next week) -
and for some reason I keep thinking of the Dave Swarbrick and Richard Thompson song
"Now Be Thankful" -
of which you can read the words by clicking on the link, and hear the music by clicking on the video.
and before somebody asks, yes we all let our hair grow that long back in 1970. Clothes and songs were a bit Victorian romantic.
Dave Swarbrick (singer on this version) got to be fortunate enough to read his obit in the UK papers a few years back and he survived a lung transplant. Richard Thompson converted to Sufi Muslim not too long after he wrote this song; today he calls himself a liberal Muslim.
To play music in a Church, you have to have the proper music license - and we dont have one that covers this song, so I dont have to think about what the congregation would think.
And certainly that Victorian style romanticism is not for everyone -

object width="425" height="355">

"Now be thankful for good things below
Now be thankful to your maker
For the rose, the red rose blooms for all to know"

The Rev. Peacebang has a blog on "I'll Pray For You"
that reminded me of a few things, which means I will talk about them now.

Five years ago, just before the death of my father - when I would visit or stay with them, I was often invited to say grace for them. We had our standard graces, and I can easily move to the one I thought they preferred, my voice would deepen and enlarge in volume, as I would start "Let us pray:" and then at the end, I would say "amen" to be followed by my mother saying a 'thank you'.

A prayer and grace can serve many purposes, and even a standard grace needs to fit the occasion and the purpose. My standard table grace would include being thankful for those who sat with us at the table and being thankful for what we were about to eat - that there were indeed those who could not sure the abundance of what we shared.

All of my standard table grace was acceptable for my parents, who grew up in the Great Depression and knew hardships and hardwork. Wordwise it included those that gave them comfort and satisfaction. These are not the same words I would use in a grace for UUs. Some UUs wouldnt feel any problems with it, but many certainly would (and I confess that my parents liked Male pronouns).

I admit that the first thing that would go would be, the words "prayer" and the words "grace".
Let's put aside what the actual words mean, I forgo "words" to focus on the purpose. Yes, it's really not a table reflection, or pre-meal thoughts - but if the purpose is to be thankful - then that is what I do: remind us to be thankful, to count our blessings.

In the example Peacebang presents: folks are angry about folks offering to pray for others. Not the "I'll pray for you to be saved, you heathen devils" prayer, but the "I will pray for you not to suffer" prayer. My initial thought is to wonder if they worry that they will get cooties if someone prays for them. As an aging southerner, this in-your-face anger puzzles me - If someone tells me something bizarre - "I'm going to the moon and eating some green cheese", then anger isnt how I would react. Since prayer is an accepted by the majority of US and World citizens - does this mean that those prone to anger at prayers are angry all the time? Isnt that a waste of anger - couldnt that anger be more productive? Aren't there worse things to be intolerant of?

My usual table graces arent as long now, as when I said them to my parents. Indeed even in my inclusive vocabulary, they might not be a table grace any more. But I do thank the cook or the preparer of the meal, I am appreciative of the reality that even simple fare is more than many others have. Even in my shyness, I have no problem when other at my table say "let us pray".
Prayer helps us focus on what is important.

Over on UUA Trustee Linda Laskowski's blog she asks some questions such as "Would we prefer more or fewer of our UU ministerial candidates to be attending non-UU schools, basically 'out-sourcing' most of the training of our ministers?"

Hard to argue with that question.
Is there anyone who would argue for outsourcing all UU ministers?

To me, the question is "why dont more of our potential ministers want to attend our schools?"

Is it distance? too expensive? or something about the school? All things can be fixed - distance learning through computers is easy - getting money less so, changing the schools even less so. But still all possible - if we know why folks aren't going. I would assume that someone has done a study on this - haven't we? What was the results? why do our potential ministers pick other schools?

I've been mostly quiet on this blog - not that's there is anything wrong with those videos, but here's what's been going on over here.

the last issue of the UU World quoted me, so I can now say "as mentioned in UU World", right?
This lead to a slightly more email - all dealing with UU history.

i did a lecture at my local UU Congregation on " Buddhism for Beginners"; a basic primer on what the Buddha said, and how folks now follow his teachings. In early December i will be upnorth in eastern North Carolina talking to the good folks at Outlaw's Bridge Universalist Church at Seven Springs. They will be hearing about D.B. Clayton. The folks in NC want a sermon and not a lecture. We will see if I can do that - a sermon is much tougher than a lecture. I will be making my notes more orderly (I could probably give an all day seminar on the topic).
and I plan to re-read the autobiography and a debate book by Clayton. I will mention the G-word when I talk - probably in quoting Clayton.

Sinus issues have left me drained and tired. you can repeat that sentence about 3 times for maximum impact.

recent books read: Benjamin Franklin by Walter Isaacson; currently reading Lost Stories by Dashiell Hammett. I should be finished reading this sometime this week. Not sure what I'll read next. Probably a children's book by Manly Wade Wellman (the only writer that my grandfather, my father and myself all three met - at separate times. Wellman did a lot of NC history books, and apparently convinced a lot of folks he was a southern writer). Or I might read a religious book - maybe I should get a pattern: reading religious books, non-fiction, and fiction in rotation.

so, what's new with you?