Our congregation used to have a very popular broadly themed discussion group before service every Sunday. But when Covid came, it went on-line via Zoom, like everything else. However, it never "came back." Its leader(s) merged it with two other groups that were not associated with our church (both sophisticated philosophy discussion groups). Now, it is nothing at all like what it used to be. It has many more members, including many from all over the world, but it is no longer a UU group and very few of our members still attend. The group seems to have left us, in all but name.

In a couple of days, I will be pitching an idea for a Forum/Discussion group to our church's council. The idea is that this group is going to be what the above-mentioned discussion group used to be before Covid. I know that there is a pretty significant demand for a group like this and I am almost positive the idea will be approved by our council.

The only point I am concerned about is its in-person status. The point of the group I feel is not learning things per se (we have community college and on-line courses for that). It is learning things in community. It is about building community by learning together, by sharing knowledge and experience and by being with each other, in the same room, smilling at each other, furrowing our brows at each other, cocking our heads inquisitively at each other, looking each other in the eye. And basically you cannot do that on Zoom. You cannot really *feel* a connection with others on Zoom. So, I definitely want this group to be in-person.

I actually don't think I will have any problem pitching an in-person discussion group. However, I would like an exclusively in-person discussion group. I have been in so many meetings over the past two years or so that are hybrid ... and it just never works well. It is difficult for moderators. It makes things awkward for the rest of the group. You have to have a microphone and wait for the microphone to be passed and speak into the microphone. And, you know, there is just something intimacy-destroying about that.

Or, you have everyone huddled around one computer and someone always trying to relay information or checking in with the people on-line to make sure they are following. And repeating things for those on-line. And .. there is something intimacy-destroying about that.

Also, I get the strong impression that members who do attend meetings or services via Zoom are, how shall I say this? um well, either not quite as much into making an effort to physically get themselves to our buidling, trying to save time or money. Which is fine for a service ... but for meetings where we would like to have a natural back-and-forth, it just doesn't work. I can't think of anyone in our congregation who couldn't actually come in person ... if they really wanted to. Ok, I just got that out there.

Yes, I realize that sometimes some people might be ill, or want to isolate, but in that case, they could just skip a week of the discussion group.

So, has anyone here successfully gone back to entirely in-person groups? And if so, how did you deal with members who now assume that a virtual option will be available for everything, even if it isn't truly needed. In other words, people who now assume that everything will be made as easy as possible for them.

I hope this hasn't turned into too much of a rant. I'm just anticipating feel frustrated with this and am looking for ways of heading the problem off at the pass, as it were.

Anyone else reading Ruttenburg’s “On Repentence and Repair” with their congregations or on their own?

I just started a few minutes ago and can already tell I‘m going to be interested in what others think.

Has anyone here ever been on a pastoral search connitteee for a UU congregation?

If so, what was the experience like? Did you find it rewarding or frustrating? or both? How time-consuming was it? What did you have to do? I am imagining that you would have to somehow figure out what the congregation wanted in a minister, then cast a more or less wide net for a candidate, then evaluate the candidates? Right?

I‘m trying to figure out if I should volunteer/try to get myself nominated for a search committee that my congregation is putting together,

Another issue: We had been a lay-led congregation for our entire history until we stuck our toes in the water a few years ago with a part-time interim minister who is now leaving. I am not sure if this is an anomaly or not, but we never had a vote about whether or not we wanted a minister in general before hiring our first minister, partly because sentiment was split on the issue and partly because those who really wanted to hire a minister, saw a perfect opportunity (someone local that they liked and would be willing to take a part-time position) and wanted to take action before that opportunity went away, So, instead of having a vote on whether or not we wanted a minister in general, we just had a vote on whether or not we would hire that one person in particular for a short period of time as sort of a trial run.

Well, now that this contract minister is leaving, instead of having a vote about the “experiement” and whether or not we want to continue to have a minister, they just decided to go ahead with another search.

I have pointed this out and was told that we will indeed have a vote soon (at our next quarterly meeting), but it is clear that they are still going ahead with forming the search commiteee in the meantime.

So, I am feeling a bit befuddled by and apprehensive of the process so far.

​

​

My church has just put out a document in which we read that “chalice lighters” (the children who light candle in the chalice at the beginning of each service) “are expected to state their pronouns.”

To my ears, “expected” sounds coercive. (A little like there might be a nun waiting in the wings to slap them with a ruler if they don’t state their pronouns). I would rather the document read “chalice lighters are encouraged (or strongly encouraged) to state their pronouns.”

​

What do you all think?

​

​

​

​

I am wondering what “love” means for you.

I am particularly interested in hearing whether or not you think that, in order to love someone or a group of people, you need to be in a personal relationship with them.

In other words, is some level of emotional intimacy necessary in order to love? Can someone “love” abstract groups of people? What does it mean to “love” humanity as opposed to “loving” people in one’s life one actually knows. Should there be two separate words to describe whatever this abstract “love” is and the love that involves an emotional, complex connection with actual known individual(s)?

As UUs are deeply committed to diversity and inclusion, I wanted to share a link to a conference — Counterweight — which is exploring liberal (instead of radical left) approaches to these issues.

https://cw.heysummit.com/

The conference can be attended for free. If you choose the free option, you can view all the talks (for free) up to 24 hours after they have been given. The conference started yesterday, Sep 22nd and goes on for 4 days.

I am becoming less and less comfortable with the overt political partisanism I see in my church (and am supposing that my church is not an outlier here).

Just one example: I found the overturning of Roe shocking and tragic. I have always whole-heartedly supported a woman’s right to choose and find this new ultra-conservative attack on woman’s autonomy scarily regressive.

However, just because I (as well as many other people in our congregation) feel this way, doesn’t mean that I want our minister to make a public statement condemning this decision (I.e. taking an explicitly partisan stand). I don’t want a minister that says: “We need to yell louder.” I don’t want a minister that essentially declares our congregation a safe space for any person who wants an abortion. I don’t want my minister to simple echo whatever the political consensus of the congregation is (or seems to be).

Why? Well, I believe that first and foremost, churches should be models of ideal communities. And ideal communities should (in my view) be open to the “other” — to people who don’t necessarily think exactly like us and yet still agree with all our principles. It is perfectly possible to be pro-life and see oneself as living according to our principles. It is perfectly possible to want stricter immigration policy and still see oneself living according to our principles. It is perfectly possible to ask questions about various controversies swirling around transgenderism and still see oneself living according to our principles.

Our minister likes to go on about how our church is a sacred space. I am an atheist, so I definitely grin and bear it. But I was quite spiritual for a long time and have a sense of what a sacred space is. To me, a sacred space is a space that stands apart from and against the world and the failings thereof. It is a space in which to be our best selves along with other people who are trying to be their best selves.

However our minister openly suggest that our sacred space needs to be a political space. She actively promotes the use of sacred language as a political weapon. In fact, the sermon we heard last week was all about wielding sacred language to make political change. Is the answer to the Right‘s politicization of conservative Christianity to go ahead and build a politically left religion? Do two wrongs make a right? I don’t think so.

I feel so despairing about politics in this country, but don’t believe the “both sides“ thing. Sure, the left has its issues, but fortunately they have not gone off the deep end in the unbridled pursuit of power for power’s sake. I would love more than anything else for us to regain political sameness and balance. I don’t know how that can happen at the moment. But I sure as hell know it’s not going to happen by having UU’s wrap themselves in a ball of anger and yell louder.

If any change is going to come, it going to take many years of concerted strategic political effort. I suppose this could happen in UU congregations (just as Black churches were instrumental in the Civil Rights movement). But I don’t see any of this happening. I just see a lot of rage, political othering and using leftish politics as a church brand-building exercise, as a form of collective identity construction.

​

So, in short, I’d like to see one of two things either:

1. Having our “sacred space,” be informed by a broad, generous interpretation of our principles and hence be de-politicized.
2. Fully commit to one issue and actually make change (which would involve analysis, having a plan, organization, etc.) and not merely yelling, whining, getting upset then trying to calm ourselves, building a collective identity as “justice seekers,” etc., etc.,

One or the other.

Im curious to know what others think about this?

Just wondering if there is an over-arching theme for the upcoming GA. I looked on the UUA website and other places on line and see lots of information about registration and logistics, but nothing about the content of the meeting itself. Is it just going to be about everything UU? Or something even slightly more specific?

Would anyone happen to know which hymns in the gray or teal hymnal were written by people of color? I mean, aside from the obvious ones, like spirituals or hymns written in Spanish.

I have been requested to select hymns by people of color for this coming Sunday and am not sure how to go about this without falling into clichés (spirituals, songs written in Spanish) and without simply Googling to hopefully get a picture of each composer/lyricist.

I did a brief search on the UUA website and all the worship materials I have seen so far about Beloved Community are all text.

In the meantime, I’m going to keep looking on the UUA site & googling.