Church in Search |
Calgary, Alberta |
Birmingham, Alabama |
Victoria, British Columbia |
Fremont, CA |
Danbury CT |
Jacksonville FL |
Orlando FL |
Very Beach FL |
Athens GA |
Iowa City IA |
Bloomington IL |
Stockton, IL |
Indianapolis IN |
West Lafayette IN |
Beverly MA |
Billerica MA |
Boston, CLF |
Brewster MA |
Cambridge, MA (Associate) Lexington MA |
Newton MA |
Plymouth MA |
Sharon MA |
Martha's Vinyard |
Portland ME |
Bloomfield Hills MI |
Brighton MI |
Detroit MI |
Troy MI |
Kalispell MT |
Omaha NE |
Concord NH |
Albuquerque NM (Assistant) Bowling Green OH |
Hamilton On |
London ON |
Portland OR (First) |
Bethlehem PA |
Meadville PA |
Aiken SC |
Sioux Falls SD |
Houston TX (First) |
Charlottesville VA |
Newport News VA |
Reston, VA |
Edmonds WA |
Eau Claire WI |
The comments made thus far make me want to review my own understanding of the reason we have a centralized Ministerial Fellowship Committee system. As I understand it, it's because the representatives of congregations serving on the UUA Board (mostly lay people, with some ministers) decided that congregations needed some system of assurance that the diversity of ministers who might be candidates for their pulpits all meet some agreed-upon basic standards of competence, apart from and independent of the standards created by the seminaries or the ministers association, neither of which are subject to the control of the association of congregations. The pre-merger system that the Universalists had, which involved accreditation of ministers on a regional basis (more like what the much larger UCC uses) was rejected. My presumption is that this rejection happened in part because of a Unitarian penchant for more centralized control, but I also think that the representative of congregations rightly believed that the different geographic regions of the United States and Canada had different kinds and concentrations of congregations and therefore different capacities for doing this kind of in-care and credentialing in a consistent way. From the beginning, we had the premise that our search and settlement system would be an open continental process, without any geographic limitations associated with the region in which you currently live or were credentialed (as is the case with some other congregational polity settlement systems). The system we created at merger believed that a centralized system for ministerial settlement would work better over time for an association of congregations our size.
So imagine with me a conversation that goes through the logic of the system we currently have. Imagine a group of lay members of search committees being asked to design a UU system for ministerial accreditation from scratch. Let 's assume that they have figured out that a system with most of our current requirements has merit. (This is a big assumption, of course, and the MFC is currently planning to review how we read the Career Assessments and the CPE evaluations,) For purposes of this essay, let’s assume that we agree that a system that requires from candidates an M. Div. or equivalent, a required reading list, a CPE, an internship or its equivalent, and recommendations from suitable lay leaders, teachers, and ministers is one we have agreed on. So after that the conversation might go like this:
"Person A: So who reviews all this to make sure it's in order?
Person B: It would have to either be done by volunteers or a hired staff person. I guess it depends on whether you see the review’s purpose as just to check off these requirement on a list? Or would this staff person or a volunteer group have to go through all the documentation to assure that it was in order and had no red flags?
Person C: I wouldn't want it to just be a check list system. The evaluative materials can have a lot of variation in them. They would have to be read through. So can this be done by just one person? How many of these new ministers would we expect to have to handle in a year?
Person A: Well, over time, as our ministry grows, it wouldn't surprise me if we had several hundred ministers in preparation and as maybe sixty or seventy a year who would be ready to have their preparation evaluated.
Person B: It's more work than a staff person could do. We would need a few of them.
Person C: Is this really staff work? Isn't it likely that the staff people hired to oversee a credentialing system would be ministers? I think we'd need to have significant lay involvement in approving credentials if the purpose of this is to assure congregations that the minister that can apply to serve them have a basic standard of competency.
Person A: I guess ideally you would like a blended group of experienced ministers and lay people. So maybe you could have staff members assemble and even summarize the evaluative materials that needed to be read and send them to readers, maybe one lay and one minister? and if they agreed that the person's written material was good to go, they could enter in "fellowship" with the UUA and be recommended to congregations.
Person B: I guess that could work -- but would these two people never actually meet the candidate? I've been on a search committee before, and we read through several thoroughly prepared packets, but the choice we eventually made for who would be our minister was finally influenced by the interviews we held, and not just by the packet. Don't you think that the persons reading over the evaluative materials should also meet the person at least once and talk with them about their preparation? That's more like what really happens in a search.
Person C: That sounds like a good idea to me. But how would you feel about your minister being chosen by a group of only two people on a search committee? If we're going to create interviews I'm not sure the opinions of two people is enough when it comes to whether we “see a minister” in that person. It’s hard to get much diversity in a group of two! Maybe the interview should be done a full committee of people, at least six or seven.
Person A: A national committee of people? Sounds expensive! Why couldn't it be done by regional volunteer groups? Maybe you could avoid the interview if the people in a regional volunteer group already knew the candidate?
Person B: That could work in a region that has the occasional ministerial candidate coming out of the congregations in a district. But what about districts that contain one of the seminaries that many UU students attend? What about those with large congregations that might have three or four candidates for ministry emerge over a period of a few years? How do regional volunteer groups work when a candidate for ministry has left the area to attend a seminary or where there are many candidates in a small geographic area? Does each have their own in-care evaluative team? How many volunteers would this need? Who would gather them and to whom would they be accountable?
Person B: A centralized national evaluative group would likely be less expensive than the cost of supporting district based committees. If you go with the premise that an interview is valuable, then a regionally based system would still require face to face meetings and the expenses they incur. I guess the cost would depend on how big the regions were. I'd be more comfortable with a system where I knew that no matter where a person went to seminary, UU or non-UU, and no matter what size or style of home church they came out of, they all get reviewed by a group of people who have developed common standards and disciplines from this review.
Person C: When would this review and interview happen? Maybe we could have a local checklist system that allows a person who has completed all the requirements to be ordained and begin working? The congregation or agency would evaluate the person after three years and then the person would be interviewed by a national credentialing body that would grant them final fellowship.
Person A: I'm not sure whether I'd want my congregation to be served by someone whose preparation had only been affirmed by a seminary or regional body. That is, unless it was someone we already knew who had a history with our congregation? I'm starting to get the feeling that regional credentialing would somehow need to be matched with a regional settlement system, and I'm not sure that the UUA is large enough for that to work. The regional volunteer demands on lay leaders and ministers are already pretty heavy."
Here ends this imaginary conversation that suggests to me the way that the logic of the current system has evolved. The values that inform it seem to me to be consistency of standards and good stewardship of limited resources and volunteer time. As we continue this discussion about credentialing, what I’m hearing from the President and the Board is that the reason we’re doing this is to insure we can attract and form new ministers who can not only serve the congregations we have but also help transform and create the congregations we need for the future. While suggestions for reform of particular parts of the current process are and will be welcome, I would like to see them framed by consideration of the resources required to make the change and the payoff in terms of formation of the ministers we need.
Wayne Arnason
My perception is that there have been four major questions about the architecture of the current accreditation system mentioned on this web discussion so far.
1) should the UUMA be responsible for accrediting ministers or should the UUA? Several people posting have suggested that it should be a UUMA responsibility although without much elaboration on the practical difficulties of that proposal. Clyde Grubbs has noted that the position of the UUA Board always has been that credentialing must be owned by the congregations, not the ministers, and their view is unlikely to change.
2) should there be a centralized credentialing process or should it be done by regional systems? Some colleagues posting believe that a regional system would be inherently more intimate and authentic than a national system and that there would be no issues with consistency among regionally based systems.
3) should there be an interview? So much anxiety seems to focus on the interview. Would our credentialing process be just as effective without it? Steve Eddington argues it would.
4) should there be preliminary fellowship? or should those who complete the documentable requirements be ordained, allowed into settlement, and then evaluated for fellowship one time, after three years of service.This is a possibility that Christine Robinson has explored.
I've hesitated to join in on this very engaging thread about ministerial credentialing, because as Chair of the MFC I run the dual risks of being seen as a defender of the status quo, or being seen as the spokesman for the MFC or the UUA (as "owner" of the MFC). In posting these thoughts, I hope I am neither. I affirm Christine Robinson's appreciation for the quality and tone of most of this conversation. I do appreciate and believe in the many assurances from colleagues who are sharing their opinions while noting that critiques of the current process are not intended to reflect personally on the individuals charged with implementing and overseeing it. Thank you! The delay in posting this was brought about by this week’s meeting on the MFC which demanded all my attention.
Last spring the MFC requested an outside review of the UUA's credentialing process by the UUA Board because the demands of our routine tasks allow too little time to undertake a comprehensive self-evaluation. As this review gets under way, with the review team still to be named, I will suggest that Tamara Payne-Alex, the project manager appointed by the Board for excellence in ministry work, follow this discussion on the iminister blog. Tamara is a lay leader who does not have access to the uuma chat. The “Calling Ministers” blog written by Early Koteen also has reflections on ministerial examining and interviewing that would be of interest to all reading this thread.
Despite our time limitations, the MFC is routinely undertaking evaluative continuing education at each meeting that brings a particular aspect of our process or our required competencies under scrutiny. This year our work has been focused on the interview itself and the way we ask questions. We are also reviewing the possibilities for a competency for ministers in sexual health.
A guest Posting from my colleague Clyde Grubbs
The UUA has since the merger maintained a list of ministers in fellowship and the Board of Trustee's has appointed and exercised oversight over its Ministerial Fellowship Committee. The mandate of the MFC is maintain the list of ministers in fellowship. The UUA Board of Trustees jealously guards its fiduciary responsibility over ministerial fellowship. I recall when I was on the UUMA exec there were discussions with the MFC of the UUMA being involved in panels that would work with ministers seeking specialized ministries that would be recognized at Final Fellowship. The UUA BoT said no way, the UUA has sole responsibility for Fellowship. (No outsourcing.)
My observation of the UUA is that an attempt at fundamental change to the principle of a unitary MFC overseeing the whole process would meet massive institutional resistance. Such a proposal would need a broad and committed constituency to enact such a radical change. Since, I do not see that constituency, I think that it safe to assume the MFC will survive as long as the corporate UUA survives.
I think the discussion has indicated that present process is dysfunctional (works with pain) and not user friendly (seeks objectives unrelated to the perceived needs of the students.)
We could compare our credentialing system to other professions, and conclude that ours is just as terrible as others, but that does not help us seek some possible reforms that might make the credentialing process work a little better and with a little less pain.
1. First, our present system is trying to do too much with too little funds. So proposals must be redistributive, take money from somewhere and put it somewhere else. We can't add on to the present system, without cuts.
1. When the Regional SubCommittee(s) on Candidacy was proposed in the early 1990s it was supposed to function as a UU version of an in care system. The advocates talked of retreats and getting to know the students and finding ways to discern who should continue and who should not. By the time the RSCs were actually instituted in the late 1990s the vision had been watered down to a way to discourage unlikely aspirants to the ministry before they acquired to much debt. The RSCs have failed even this more modest goal.
2.
3. We must conclude that the RSCs have devolved to just another hoop for students to jump over, granting candidate status based on an interview and paper work. They function simply to prescreen aspirants and while that function takes some burden from the MFC it does not change the quality of the ministerial formation process at all. Students are screened rather than nurtured and formed. Like child abuse victims many survivors enter our ministry resentful and regard the good people who serve on the RSCs and MFC as "strangers," "people with their own agendas" and other language indicating alienation rather feeling collegially embraced. For me, the Unitarian Universalist Ministry belongs the community of Unitarian Universalists and we together serve that community. Our process of credentialing must be part of a process of formation for full participation in that Unitarian Universalist Ministry.
4. Based on the above, I propose we seriously think of phasing out the RSCs and instead building an in - care system for formation, discernment and support closer to the students. I pray for a in care team made up of ministers in final fellowship and experienced lay folk who would work with a aspirant through the candidacy process and to the point of appointment with the MFC. The MFC would extend candidate status when the local in care team recommend that the aspirant has the potential to pursue fellowship. The student would make an appointment with the MFC when the local in care team recommends that they are ready to see the MFC. Since these local structures would not need funds for travel, hotel and what not they would free up funds for program costs. (Things we require students to do like CPE and Career Evaluation should be paid for.) The MFC could also meet more often or be expanded so it could meet with students on a timely basis. Long waits are cruel.
4. I am convinced that theologians need supervised clinical practice and reflection on that practice. But we do need to find ways to help pay for the cost of taking Clinical Pastoral Education.
5. I think theological education must evolve away from expensive residency programs toward on line and week long intensives. This would mean students would be less concentrated in Boston, San Francisco Bay, Chicago etc. and could continue deep relationship with congregations. It would mean in care and formation would be shared by a larger cadre of ministers in the vicinity.
6. The above wouldn't work for everyone. Lots of folks go off to theological school to discover themselves and end up in our ministry and would find the long time nurture and more intimate locality of an in care system an imposition. They would long for the day when becoming a UU minister was just a series of hoop jumping exercises. But one can't please everyone.
These are the thoughts of my colleague Steve Edington of Nashua, NH
Say we take a population of 100 individuals who have prepared for the UU ministry and have all met the following criteria at approximately the same time:
*Have an MDiv or equivalent degree
*Have completed the requisite CPE requirement for Fellowship
*Have done an internship and received a favorable evaluation from their supervisor
*Have taken the required psychological evaluations and been declared sane enough, and emotionally fit, for the UU ministry
*Have completed any of the other requirements for Fellowship that I've overlooked, short of the MFC interview
We divide this population into Groups A and B with 50 in each group. Those in Group A each go before the MFC and those who get good numbers go into the search process as per usual. Those in Group B bypass the MFC and go straight into the search process. Enough persons in each group (say, at least 30) get settlements in parish or community ministries and launch into their ministerial careers.
Now, (for you who are still with me) those conducting this experiment devise a set of criteria for measuring a successful ministry, which I will not spin out here. We track the ministers in each group for, let's say, ten years to see how they measure up to the "successful ministry" criteria; and at the end of those ten years we see how many successful ministers/ministries we have from Groups A and B.
And the question is (if you haven't guessed it already): Do you think there would be an appreciable difference in the successful ministers in Groups A and B?
My answer, based as I'll admit, on sheer personal speculation, is No. This does not mean I'm opposed to any kind of a credentialing process, only that I have some serious reservations about how well the one we now have in place is serving our ministry, and by extension, our liberal religious movement.
Final caveat: Nothing contained in this post is in any way meant disparage, diminish, or demean the fine, competent, and dedicated individuals who serve, or have served, on the MFC. I'm only asking if there's a better way. Got some thoughts on that too but this has gone on too long as it is.
My colleague Dan Hotchkiss writes this very interesting comment to an earlier post, which I thought I'd bring up to the front page:
Your suggestion of waiting till a candidate has three years of ministry service before evaluating fitness is an interesting one. My experience as UUA settlement (now transitions) director, 1990-97, was that the search committees not only gave more time and attention to candidates, but also were the only part of the system that consistently had the spine to say no. The seminaries had a financial incentive to say yes; the MFC caught flak whenever they said no, and so did I. My impression is that the MFC says no a little more often than it did then, but that the Department has relinquished the gatekeeper role. So more than ever, the search committees are the place where the buck stops. When they make a mistake, though, three years' bad experience is a high price for the congregation.
My first thought is that a congregation evaluates a minister's performance, up close, personal, and continually and is perfectly free to part company with that minister long before preliminary Fellowship is over. For the MFC, a pattern of short tenures would surely weigh very heavily against the granting of Final Fellowship, just as it does now.
However, since the main reason...I believe the only stated reason.. for the whole credentialing process is to try to prevent the high cost (to congregations, although ministers and their families bear a hight cost, too) of inept, unprepared, or unsuitable persons getting through the search process and doing harm to congregations, I think we should ask ourselves (and probably gather real data on) the kinds of ministerial issues which do real harm to congregations. Because, as any HR director will tell you, every time you hire somebody you take a risk, and even pros have a considerable failure rate. No credentialing process will make ministerial settlement easy or foolproof.
It is my impression (based on 30 years of cursory observation and in depth knowledge of two church histories and lots of anecdotal evidence...but I know of no real statistics on this matter) that there are two kinds of minsiterial settlement "mistakes," and that that have different costs. The first kind of settlement mistake happens when someone is called to a position that they don't, in retrospect, have the skill or interest to hold. Their preaching may be just not up to snuff in the long run, they may lack real understanding of church systems, they may not be able to muster the emotional energy or emotional intelligence to cope with the situation, they may discover that they can't cope with the social situation, hate the landscape, or have health or family issues that keep them from focusing on their work. The cost of this kind of problem, when it is bad enough to require the minister to leave, is considerable, there's no doubt about it; money and lost momenteum on the part of the congregation, and the need to move to a more appropriate job or line of work for the minister (and their family.)
But almost everybody adjusts and moves on from this kind of situation and lives happily ever after.
The settlement "mistakes" that I think of as terribly costly and damaging, the ones which come up over and over again in histories of congregations are not simple matters of lack of skill or focus, they are instead matters of poor ministerial mental health, personality disorder, leadership style, lack of emotional intelligence, and inability to maintain good boundaries. (All of these problems can become predominant in the lay leadership of a congregation, which also causes settlement failures but that's another subject.) It may be that others have a different take on this issue, but if I could wave my magic wand, I'd give us a foolproof tool for weeding out candidates with the above issues. Lacking the magic wand, I'd focus ministerial credentialing on doing a better job on this part of the score.
For the past 30 years, ministers have been screened for mental health and fitness in a psychological exam (the old days) or Career Center Screening (current practice). There is almost always a psychologist on the MFC. But it's clear to me that these tools are not adequate to the task and people with significant problems slip through. Fewer now than in the old days, and there's less damage done now that, as a society, a denomination, and a professional organization we've become clearer about the incredible damage that sexual misconduct can do and are quicker to report it and act on it. Still, I wonder if we are using state of the art tools. (Actually, I'm pretty sure that we are not). Because my observation is that this is where the rubber of preventing harm hits the credentialing road.
This is a guest post from Eliz Curtis. She blogs at Politywonk
My political science undergraduate training emphasized what was called
"small group dynamics" and "group think" as a pitfall in decision-making.
Small self-contained groups tend to make decisions based not on discreet
sets of facts, but on the needs and dynamics of their ongoing
relationship. Each player comes in with larger goals and continuencies;
they need these other folks on board to serve those objectives. In
military parlance, this is the difference between "tactical" thinking --
short-term, here-and-now goals -- versus "strategic" -- how does this fit
into the larger objective. We who see the MFC do not want to be cannon
fodder for the larger visions of ministry each committee member brings,
but that can be what happens.
It does not mean any MFC member is to blame. It means they spend tons of
time fashioning their larger visions, rather than listening to specific
congregations.
Purists among our historians point out that during the heyday of
congregational authority, ordination applied only to the congregation
which bestowed it. There was no such thing as a pure ministerial gift: it
was all relational.
What I like about the pulpit rotation system and learned ministry is that
it formed an early attempt at bicaleralism.
For the record, I STILL support this kind of bicameralism. RSS's would be
more accountable not only spend time with the aspirant, but also to visit
their home congregation for story-telling. There would still be a central
MFC, with powers of arbitration, appeal and review when the local
processes get stuck on particular cases.
All records, being essentially employment records, would be public and
publicly available.
Elz Curtiss
Burlington, Vermont
My colleague Margret O'Neall, interim minister of the UU church in Sarasota, Florida, lately wrote this to her colleagues, and gave me permission to reproduce it here.
I give a lot of thought to our MFC processes, having seen the committee within the past year, and comparing it both to other professional credentialing systems, and to the process one of my colleagues in the UCC is going through (their "in-care" system). I believe that a more relational and grounded process could, if thoughtfully cultivated, be more consistent with our theological and philosophical understandings and commitments, and contribute more fully to the process of formation.
In my own case, both the idea and the actual experience of being examined by a board of strangers, who knew me only from paper and a brief personal exposure under extremely stressful conditions, felt disrespectful of my ministry and inadequate as a pass-fail system of judgment on my preparation for professional engagement with a congregation or community. No matter how they tried to be both objective and relational, those who sat in judgment over me did not know me, some clearly had their own agendas, and had a lot of power over my future.
Much of my career prior to ministry has been invested in community and academic systems. I find that our current process of admitting ministers into fellowship picks up some of the worst faults in a range of systems, and would do well to be re-thought systematically and with a stronger grounding in congregational, seminary and ministerial mentoring relationships. Some good things are clearly happening -- strengthening RSCC's, mentored praxis in seminaries, the Mountain Desert District's "Living Into Covenant" initiative. Perhaps it will trickle up to the MFC, but trickles do not usually run in that direction unless there is a pump involved.
Margret O'Neall
Another think I think we should seriously explore.
Given the fact that it is hard to know who is going to succeed in ministry until they succeed, I would suggest that the major "gatekeeping" function be, not at preliminary fellowship, but at Final Fellowship. At that point, the record of a new minister's ministry can speak for itself. Most will have clearly succeeded or failed and will not even need to be interviewed, which is no small expense for candidates or for the UUA. (The interviewing will have been done by one or more search committees who actually spend a lot more time with candidates than the MFC and whose judgment, in congregational polity, should be respected.) The requirements for Preliminary Fellowship might simply be the passing of RSCC, background check, and careful scrutiny of documents, not for "ministerial presence" (which only appropriately develops in ministry, after all) or preaching ability (congregations can be trusted to judge for themselves whether they want to hear this person) but for psychological health and a healthy attitude towards ministerial leadership.
Persons in preliminary Fellowship would be provisionally ordained and it would be suggested to congregations that they be hired for a three year term, with the possibility of a call extended after Final Fellowship is granted.
The advantage of this is that almost everyone would search for a church in their senior year of seminary and begin to work the next Fall, and when they were judged, they would be judged on their record, and that would, for most people be much less anxiety-producing. Lots of things to think through, of course, but I think this approach (more like what the Methodists do) is worth thinking about.
Another part of the cost of ministry is the cost of moving somewhere for 9 months to do an internship. This model is nice for the unattached 20-something but it doesn't work well for older ministers or those with families. I have had several applications from interns who proposed to leave small children with their working spouse for nine months in order to come to New Mexico and do their internship. The family finances required that. This is not a good situation at all.
Let's re-think that one-size-fits-all ministerial formation model. How about the possibility of 3-5 year supervised residencies, or allowing interns to take a job in the church they have interned in, or even intern in their home church? While there are reasons all of those are disallowed or frowned on, our frowns may just be too darned expensive in the current climate.
Here is one thought I have about reducing the cost of ministerial education.
Make it possible for most candidates to complete their preparation for this career in three years, inclusive of CPE, internship, reading list, MFC interview, and job hunting process. That's the way it used to be. Most candidates are taking four, five, or more years these days. Even if they are only paying three years of tuition, they are taking several more to complete their requirements...a lot more time than it used to be, because the requirements have gone up and the anxiety and timing detail of RSCC and MFC interviews has skyrocketed. I have not noticed a corresponding increase in the quality of our ministry in the past generation. I am sure all the new requirements and processes were good ideas, but the total preparation required has gotten out of hand. You can be a physician in the time it takes to be a minister.
I grieve for the many people of modest means who will not be able to afford to prepare for our ministry, and I grieve for what we are missing from them. I also worry that our current situation fills our ministry with people who are so sure of their call from the very beginning, or so heedless of the financial risks that they are taking that they will do this...leading to a ministry devoid of the more humble, frugal, and cautious persons who would also serve us well.
This has been running around the Jewish internet, and one of my lay leaders sent it to me as we're doing a simple version of this ritual on Sunday. I thought it was the funniest thing I'd seen in weeks.
On the Jewish New Year, Rosh Hashanah, there is a ceremony called Tashlich. Jews traditionally go to the ocean or a stream or river to pray and throw bread crumbs into the water. Symbolically, the fish devour their sins.
Occasionally, people ask what kind of bread crumbs should be thrown.
Here are suggestions for breads which may be most appropriate for specific sins and misbehaviors:
For ordinary sins - White Bread
For erotic sins - French Bread
For particularly dark sins - Pumpernickel
For complex sins - Multi-Grain
For twisted sins - Pretzels
For tasteless sins - Rice Cakes
For sins of indecision - Waffles
For sins committed in haste -Matzoh
For sins of chutzpah - Fresh Bread
For substance abuse - Stoned Wheat
For use of heavy drugs - Poppy Seed
For petty larceny- Stollen
For committing auto theft - Caraway
For timidity/cowardice - Milk Toast
For ill-temperedness - Sourdough
For silliness, eccentricity - Nut Bread
For not giving full value - Shortbread
For jingoism, chauvinism - Yankee Doodles
For excessive irony - Rye Bread
For unnecessary chances - Hero Bread
For telling bad jokes/puns - Corn Bread
For war-mongering - Kaiser Rolls
For dressing immodestly - Tarts
For causing injury to others - Tortes
For lechery and promiscuity - Hot Buns
For promiscuity with gentiles - Hot Cross Buns For racist attitudes - Crackers
For sophisticated racism -Ritz Crackers
For being holier than thou - Bagels
For abrasiveness - Grits
For dropping in without notice - Popovers
For over-eating - Stuffing
For impetuosity - Quick Bread
For indecent photography - Cheesecake
For raising your voice too often - Challah
For pride and egotism - Puff Pastry
For sycophancy, a**-kissing - Brownies
For being overly smothering - Angel Food Cake
For laziness - Any long loaf
For trashing the environment - Dumplings
For those who require a wide selection of crumbs, we suggest a Tashlich Mix available in three grades (Taslich Lite, Medium, and Industrial Strength) at your favorite Jewish bookstore.
I am working on an idea I have about "diversity". My idea is that, having gotten beyond the most obvious outer layers of racism and other prejudices, we are working on the more subtle parts. And, of course,the subtle parts are difficult to pin down because of their subtlety. My impression is that where we are stuck is that the real things that keep people of different back grounds from being comfortable with each other are the unconscious cultural differences in how we speak to each other and our world view. Those unthinking things like how far apart we stand when we talk to each other, how long we pause when we want to communicate that the other person can speak now, Whether we communicate directly or indirectly, whether we negotiate from specific to general or vice versa, how often we touch the other person while speaking. All these things are unconscious, "self-evident", and really annoying when someone does them differently because we interpret difference in custom as intended rudeness, or just strangeness. We get along with people who are more like us, we have communication problems with people who are less like us.
I think this level is where a lot of UU problems with diversity resides now. when I talk to people about this, many of them say things like, "I thought we were all the same." Or they don't say that and just imply it, if they are more indirect. It seems it's a hard concept to "get". That would seem to validate it being a problem.
I think we could work on this level of "diversity" to our advantage. Maybe it would help us achieve some more diversity in our congregations.
Rest in Peace, Max. You fed us well...
Let us give thanks for a bounty of people:
For children who are our second planting, and though they grow like weeds and the wind too soon blows them away, may they forgve us our cultivation and fondly remember where their roots are.
Let us give thanks:
For generous friends with hearts as big as hubbards
and smiles as bright as their blossoms;
For feisty friends as tart as apples;
For continuous friends, who, like scallions and cucumbers,
keep reminding us that we've had them;
For crotchety friends, as sour as rhubarb and as indestructible;
For handsome friends, who are as gorgeous as eggplants
and as elegant as a row of corn, and the
others, as plain as potatoes and so good for you;
For funny friends, who are as silly as Brussels sprouts
and as amusing as Jerusalem artichokes, and serious friends,
as complex as cauliflowers and as intricate as onions;
For friends as unpretentious as cabbages, as subtle as summer squash,
as persistent as parsley, as delightful as dill, as endless as zucchini, and who, like parsnips, can be counted on to see you through the winter;
For old friends nodding like sunflowers in the evening-time and young friends coming on as fast as radishes;
For loving friends, who wind around us like tendrils and hold us, despite our blights, wilts and witherings;
And, finally, for those friends now gone, who like gardens past that have been harvested, but who fed us in their times that we might have life thereafter;
For all these we give thanks.
Let Us Give Thanks
from View from a Tree
--Max Coots
I shall tell you a great secret, my friend. Do not wait for the last judgment, it takes place every day.
You will never be happy if you continue to search for what happiness consists of. You will never live if you are looking for the meaning of life.
there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life.
When you have once seen the glow of happiness on the face of a beloved person, you know that a man can have no vocation but to awaken that light on the faces surrounding him. In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer.
My colleague Jim Zacharias got to read from one of Web's coyote books, and there were, indeed, several droll stories. The best of them? The church administrator said that before Web arrived, the church had signed up for call waiting, but Web hated hearing the little beep of an incoming call while he was on the phone. He called it "telephonicus interruptus". They got rid of it.
The second best story? The Santa Fe church was a Fellowship when Web arrived, and they didn't like it when Web, still the New Englander, wore his robe. So it was suggested to his wife that she suggest to him that he might preach in a suit. (That's how things were done in those days) Web obliged, but in his own quirky way. Turns out that old New Englander didn't know how to put an outfit together. So there was the Sunday...judging by the laughter, some people remembered it...when he wore a green suit with a blue checkered shirt. The members suggested to his wife that she take him shopping. This she declined to do. "I married him as he is," she said. Web went back to wearing a robe and the congregation accepted it.
It was a lovely service. Rest in Peace, Web...good colleague, good minister, good man.
P.S. Was Coyote there? Well, I didn't exactly see him. But after the service, on the table of photographs Web's family had arranged, some thoughtless person had left a bag from Dunkin Donuts...
iMinister came out in support of Peter Morales for president of the UUA months and months ago. She agrees with him that the UUA needs to see, not just a little change, but transformational change if we are to be healthy in this new era. She's sure that our dialogue about diversity has been woefully lacking in Hispanic voices, which Peter would bring, and she loves the energy and commitment to our shared enterprize which he brings to the campaign.
Here's what I mean.
Imagine five years have passed and imagine that your vision for UUism is fully alive and thriving. What three to five goals have been realized?
Here are their written responses.
Peter Morales ...
The goals that will have been accomplished in five years are intimately interrelated. The guiding vision behind them all is a revitalized Unitarian Universalist movement that transforms lives and that helps to heal the world. In five years we will have a new sense of urgency and excitement across our movement. The following accomplishments are manifestations of living out our mission:
1. We are growing at a rate of three percent per year. Growth is not the goal, it is the measure by which we determine whether we are meeting the fundamental human need for religious community. We are growing because we are doing a better job of welcoming the seeker, retaining our youth, and engaging our existing members. As we grow we are becoming more diverse in terms of race, class and culture. Our growth rate has tripled and is accelerating.
2. We are more engaged in the great moral issues of our time. As a natural outgrowth of a deeper sense of compassion and connection, we are a more powerful force for justice, understanding and environmental stewardship. At the local level, it means that more members of our congregations are involved in social action and public witness. At the Association level, it means that we are building on our tradition of public witness and that we have forged a new partnership with the UUSC on social action.
3. We have developed a strategic vision for ministry and are beginning its implementation. Our strategy for ministry has been developed through consultation with stakeholders. Our strategy is a comprehensive approach that includes recruitment, training, placement, mentoring and development of professional ministry.
4. The UUA staff has a culture of transparency, accountability and effectiveness. As a matter of course we evaluate our programs and our people. We learn from our mistakes. Our staff is more involved in being the means for sharing best practices and innovative ideas across congregations.
5. We are forming strong relationships with groups that share our values. This includes international Unitarian and Unitarian Universalist movements, public policy advocacy groups, the UUSC, and others.
Laurel Hallman's written response:
1. Our children and youth will participate in UU congregations as adults.
2. Our UUA endowment will grow to a sustainable level, and our dependence on its income for operating expenses will diminish.
3. We will wed our religious and theological future to our historical past, and will experience the power of that synergy.
4. The Free Spirit will become a source of inspiration, activism, humility and strength in our association.
5. Our alliances will enlarge our effectiveness in the world.
I hope to have an opportunity to insert the idea that we need games for moral and religious education. We'll see.
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile