July 2006 Archives

Elizabeth writes in her Little Blog of Résistance, that way of being in the world which Dorothee Soelle witnessed in a life lived as a religious activist whose Christianity meant being a peacemaker in face of war, being a witness of humanity in the face of exploitation and coercion, being a witness of courage in the face of the banality of the corporate culture. She defined resistance as the refusal to become "habituated to death, something that is one of the spiritual foundations of the culture of the First World.""

The culture of the First World that she refers to in "The Silent Cry: Mysticism and Resistance" is identified in her other writings as the corporate culture that seeks to turn every person, every part of God's creation and every product of humanity into an object for exchange, something to be bought and sold. It is the dominant culture of "power over" that perpetuates the ancient systems of patriarchy, racism, and classism with a new violence, the violence that sees persons as the walking dead, as objects to be manipulated.

This week as we experience the murder of children and hear the crime excused by the leaders of the "free world" we see the face of the culture of death. When I read and re-read Soelle, I know that Christianity lives in hearts of faithful witnesses in spite of betrayal by so many leaders of the Church who have embraced death so that they could bask in light of the Powers and Principalities of this Era. But as the Rabbi observed, they have had their reward.

Dorothee Soelle died last spring. Here she is remembered.

Christian Century, May 17, 2003

Dorothee Soelle, a German Protestant theologian who died on April 27 at the age of 73, was a controversial figure in her own church but attracted a large following by combining Christian mysticism and radical political commitment.

The author of 30 books, Soelle never held a full professorship at a German university. Some attributed that to her support of left-wing political causes, such as opposition to the Vietnam War. But from 1975 to 1987 she spent six months each year as professor of systematic theology at Union Theological Seminary in New York.

"She was and remains the political conscience of Protestantism," said Maria Jepsen, the Lutheran bishop of Hamburg, where Soelle lived, reported the German Protestant news agency. A popular speaker in Europe, Soelle displayed radicalism and themes in her early works that prefigured later developments in feminist theology.

"She was genuinely and deeply rooted in the spiritual tradition of the Christian church and intensely engaged in the struggle for justice," said Konrad Raiser, general secretary of the World Council of Churches. Soelle developed a massive following during the post-World War II student revolt in West Germany. With Fulbert Steffensky, a Benedictine monk she later married, she founded in 1968 the Politisches Nachtgebet in Cologne--late-evening prayers linking spirituality and politics in churches that became full to overflowing.

Check out Technocrati. The Blogs are beginning to notice.  Check out the mass media, the pundits are beginning to say it out loud.

"The war isn't working."    That is the U.S. and Israeli goals for this 20 day reign of insanity have failed.  Hezbollah is not about to be eliminated from Southern Lebanon.
They can't be eliminated unless one eliminates the population of Southern Lebanon.

Oh you say, Israel did not mean eliminate Hezbollah, the largest political party in Lebanon.  They were speaking of eliminating Hezbollah's military capacity.  They used eliminate Hezbollah, but they meant Hezbollah's fighting capacity.  But it should be clear by now that military capacity won't be eliminated by air strikes.  When has that worked in the last five decades?  Isn't insanity doing over and over and over what has failed in the past.

Paul Krugman observes in his column this morning:

For Americans who care deeply about Israel, one of the truly nightmarish things about the war in Lebanon has been watching Israel repeat the same mistakes the United States made in Iraq. It's as if Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has been possessed by the deranged spirit of Donald Rumsfeld. [...] What Israel needs now is a way out of the quagmire. And since Israel doesn't appear ready to reoccupy southern Lebanon, that means doing what it should have done from the beginning: try restraint and diplomacy. And Israel will negotiate from a far weaker position than seemed possible just three weeks ago. [...] Again, Israel has the right to protect itself. If all-out war with Hezbollah becomes impossible to avoid, so be it. But bombing Lebanon isn't making Israel more secure. [...] The hard truth is that Israel needs, for its own sake, to stop a bombing campaign that is making its enemies stronger, not weaker.

Violence begets violence. Olympia Brown taught our spiritual ancestors this:

"We can never make the world safe by fighting.  Every nation must learn that the people of all nations are children of God, and must share in the wealth of the world.  You may say that this is impracticable, far away, can never be accomplished, but it is the work we are appointed to do.  Sometime, somehow, somewhere, we must learn this great lesson."

To which the faithful say, "Amen."

And to which the infants say "but Johnny hit me first." Yes he did.  So.  Handle it like an adult.

I am spending hours at the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Florida this summer. This is a major research and treatment center for cancer, they are are on the cutting edge of clinical trials. But there is also a recognition that the person is mind, body and spirit, and so addition to chemotherapy, radiation and surgery there are many other ways of treatment, and supporting treatment. These include chaplaincy, art programs, support groups, and programs based on some ancient spiritual disciplines. The Mediation and Guided Imagery offered at the Moffitt go beyond distress and anxiety management, they include harnessing the healing power of the human pysche through the power of visioning that is guided by mediation. This is one of the most ancient ways of healing, known to the shamans of old.

But the Moffitt is a scientific institute and gets its funding for its science, so this is the way it talks about this program.

Meditation and Guided Imagery Sessions

Weekly meditation and guided imagery sessions for patients and family members are facilitated by trained staff in the Psychosocial Clinic. These sessions are offered to enable participants to learn successful tools for managing distress and anxiety effectively.

A political movement requires the support of its people, if one wishes to undermine a political movement it might be argued that it is pragmatic to support a divisive extremist group to disrupt the political unity of that movement. But watch out, supporting extremists may be costly in the long run.

So Israeli 'intelligence" created a religious extremist party to oppose a secular coalition whose mass movement was forcing Israel to an international conference! There are other stories on this site, which takes a critical look at all forms of extremism and violence mongering and suggests how the policies of retaliatory response has feed the cycle of violence.

Chutney writes of the gifts and graces of ministers,  and relates that he was brought up in "a crossfire between free range charismatics" and Methodists so that "[o]ne half of my church life taught me that anyone with the gifts and graces for ministry was a ministry and that we are all called to be ministers. The other half taught me that ministry was something conferred by graduate professional degrees and power hungry old men with black robes."

Ministry flows from the mission of a religious community, it is giving concrete expression of the mission of that religious community.  All members of the religious community are called to give expression to the ministry of that congregation, but most religious communities have found that functionaries aid the community in giving expression to its ministry.  In most healthy congregations many members are doing the ministry of the congregation, but the congregation has authorized one or more individuals to lead the community, and to aid the members of the congregation in doing the ministry.  Let us call these functionaries clergy.  Clergy do ministry, and may have the title Minister.  All committed members of a religious community may be called to do ministry, but traditionally clergy have been authorized to teach and to lead the ministry.

The ministry of the clergy does not flow from individual feelings of being gifted and graced, but rather from a community recognizing those "gifts and graces" and authorizing that person for ministry (as clergy.)  If a religious community of charismatics authorizes someone with the gifts and graces as their clergy, presumably that community has some standard for recognizing those gifts and graces.  I think that it is goes without saying that different communities may designate different "gifts and graces" as essential to their clergy.

The tradition from which the Unitarian Universalists emerged created an association wide process for the formation, education and authorization of ordained and fellowshipped clergy.  That tradition has included seminary education for more than a century.  While many Unitarian Universalist lay members perform ministries as an expression of their congregation's mission, most Unitarian Universalists find that their ordained and fellowshipped clergy help focus the congregation on its mission and give leadership both to the prophetic and pastoral dimensions of ministry.  In our tradition we call these clergy Unitarian Universalist Ministers.

Before the founding of seminaries and before seminary education became required liberal congregationalists (the tradition that most influenced the Unitarians and the Universalists) looked for college educated young men to become their clergy. Most men graduated from college at 19 or 20,  todays institutionalized secondary education followed by university undergraduate education was not the norm.

These young men would then teach (elementary level) school, the pastor of the church was also in charge of education of the town and while both the boys and girls schools were fee for service they were approved by the town's Pastor who also had the title Teacher.  (Some towns had a ordained minister as Teacher and another as Pastor.)  The Teacher would invite promising young scholars to teach (and thus to make a living) and read divinity under his direction.  If we read the biographies of clergy before the founding of Andover Theological School (the first graduate level seminary in the United States, founded with an evangelical orientation) and Harvard Divinity School (the Unitarian response to Andover) we find that the clergy were formed from college educated young adults who had spent a few years reading under an ordained pastor of a congregational church, and teaching, preaching, and pastoring under this mentoring supervision.  (The internship was combined with the advanced study.)  The ordained ministers selected from among the promising candidates who they thought had "gifts and graces" and sent them out to do some supply preaching and teaching in congregations looking for a Minister.  If the congregation found the candidate gifted and graceful, they ordained and settled the young man who was expected to grow old with that congregation.

What do we learn from this social history?*  While ministry was done by the congregations, they sought someone to be their Minister.  The primary function of the Minister was to be the Teacher of the congregation (and the wider community as well.)  Since Teaching was the primary function of Ministers, education was assumed and scholarship was desired.  The dairies of both Universalists and Unitarians show that pastoral skills of these teacher preacher clerics was not always what the congregation expected.  There are articles in the religious magazines about how to turn a shy young scholar into a pastor. (Usually involving mentoring by wise lay leaders, thus the birth of the Ministerial Relation Committees.)

We should also note that the primary formation of the future pastors was done by the clergy who acting as office holders and as colleagues one with another work to assure the future of a learned clergy.  Seminaries were founded to help educate a learned clergy, who in our tradition continue to have the function of teachers.  It has always been the assumption that the development of "gifts and graces" of any particular candidate would be overseen by the collegial community of ministers who continue to play a major role in the formation of new ministers through supervision, mentorship and teaching courses in seminaries.  The recognition of "gifts and graces" is given over the lay members of our congregations in three forms: each candidate for Unitarian Universalist Ministry must have sponsorship by a congregation; each candidate must complete a internship (not in their home congregation) in which they learn the arts of ministry but also in which their "gifts and graces" are discerned by a lay teaching committee and finally by the congregation that ordains the candidate into the Unitarian Universalist Ministry.

Unitarian Universalist Ministers are not the only ones who do ministry among Unitarian Universalists.  It is a good thing that Chutney experiences most of those who minister to him to be among the laity.  I believe that the growth of Unitarian Universalism requires more and more lay ministers.  But I also believe that to assure that those lay ministers serve Unitarian Universalist congregations and not themselves we must increase the number and quality of Unitarian Universalist Ministry (the clergy.)

In the age of on-line classes, and week long seminars that allow people working in churches and agencies a way to access theological education, we may find that graduate theological schools are not the best way of providing the education necessary for Unitarian Universalist Ministry.  When they were founded the theological schools were a reflection that the"gifts and graces" that our tradition required in its clergy was not the same as the gifts and graces of  that Catholic parishes, Hindu temples, or free range charismatics sought in their clergy.  We believed in the priesthood of all believers, we did not look for our clergy to have a monopoly on priestcraft.  We believed in the prophethood of all believers we did not look for our clergy to have a monopoly on leadership.  But our spiritual ancestors believed and we continue to believe that it is wise to authorize some among us to be teachers of the arts and skills of ministry, and such a body of clergy would help us all become ministers as well.

I recognize the justice of Chutney's charge that the present system reflects classism and elitism.  But the labor movement has some experience in opposing classism and that movement evolved a mature way of dealing with the classism of the education system.  Primitive radicalism recognized that schooling bestowed privilege and schooling was difficult for those lacking privilege.  The populist response was to rage against learning and the intellegensia.  American anti intellectualism has deep populist roots.  But early in its history the labor movement recognized that anti intellectualism simply perpetuated the monopoly on learning by the elite, and they joined the fight for a free and universal public education system.  I would argue that we can learn from this example, rather than become theological levellers, we need to find ways to open access to theological education for everyone who seeks to grow as a minister.

*Besides the obvious - our system of fellowshipping ministers evolved from a patriarchial "old boys club" - so true- but so did our the systems of training lawyers, professors, and physicians.  Transformation sometimes takes the form of renewing institutions that reflected oppressive systems and have proved useful for advancing inclusion and equality when under new management.

In most of the world, bicycles are utility vehicles, that is they are used for commuting, shopping, and for the pick up and delivery of packages. In Europe, Africa and Asia the postal workers use bicycles to deliver the mail, or groceries, and the social and health care workers find bicycling a good way to get around town.

Automobiles and trucks are too expensive to purchase and operate, but bicycles are relatively inexpensive to maintain and the energy to power a bicycle comes from feeding the cyclist. So for organizations and individuals looking for ways to aid a developing country and its people donating bicycles is a natural. Church groups, and charitable organizations all over Europe collect used bicycles, fix them up, and ship them off to Africa as a way to help people get a transportation.

Bicycle Magazine which fills most of its pages with advertising for expensive recreational bicycles, and articles on how to ride faster, faster and still faster has a social service project called Bike Town. Bike Town supplies free new bikes to people both in the USA and in Africa. Then they run human interest stories on the new riders. The U.S. riders gain health and discover the pleasures of using a bike for commuting and recreation. The Africans stories include the women's movement outreach organizer who is able to get out to remote villages and extend her organizing. The BikeTown project targets AIDS outreach workers and supplies them with new bikes. The nurse who can now visit many more people needing her services at home. The student who can now work his way through school making deliveries. About half of the Americans who get free bikes become utility riders (shopping, getting around town, commuting) while many save their bikes for the recreational ride on weekends. All the Africans become utility riders, in addition to shopping and commuting, not a few are able to begin a small business, and all are able to be more productive in their work a day lives.

I was inspired, and was thinking that this was a social service project I might introduce to liberal churches. It would be a Heifer Project for vegetarians. But then I read that Africans would prefer to manufacture their own bicycles, to many of the American and Europeans used bikes are unsuited for the unpaved roads of Africa, and having a single standard of manufacturing would facilitate spare parts supply and training users in repair technique.

Africa needs bikes, the easiest way to get them to Africa is for voluntary organizations to collect used bikes and fix them up and ship them in mixed lots to distribution points. A better way for Africa might be for voluntary organizations to raise money to buy specially designed utility bicycles with tough frames, wheels and tires, with coaster brakes and no fancy gearing. These could be manufactured in Africa, South Africa has the industrial base to do this now.

How do churches do social service projects? And for what purpose? If we wish to aid a developing country perhaps we need to think twice before shipping used bikes that were built for American recreational riders.

"Where your treasure is, there will be your heart also." Matthew 6:21

Based on CIA data the world spends over $750 billion a year on military preparations. The official budget figures for US military expenditures for fiscal year 2004 was 400 billion. Thus the United States spends more than half of total world expenditures. We all this huge financial the Defense budget, but the U.S. military has much capacities that go way beyond defense, this is a budget intended to project U.S. power and to enable the U.S. administration to coerce nations who would wish to pursue policies contrary to the wishes of the administration.

More than half of the U.S. budget goes to maintain this coercive military presence in the world. Countries that have advanced economies and do not spend their treasure on war and preparation for war are able to afford excellent education programs up to and including higher education, to provide an universal health care, to maintain and renew their infrastructure, and invest in restructuring their economies for the future. But the people of the United States are being reduced to debtors, working long hours to maintain a modest standard of living and watching our nations transportation system, energy grid, and water and sewage system fall apart. Agribusiness is feeding us junk food and we are treating the resulting obesity with more medicine.

To put it gently, our priorities are wrong. The heart of our nation has been seduced by power and we have become addicted to unsustainable ways of living. If the Hebrew prophets called the people back to the covenant, then what is our promise?

I suggest we look at the Constitution of the United States as a covenant document. While not perfect, it is like all committee compromises a reflection of the tensions of the people and the time in which it was constructed. But it provides a good place to begin a conversation, where is our heart?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Unitarian Universalists have joined in association and covenanted to affirm and promote the goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all. For religious liberals social ethics arise out of commitments made in community, and take the form of promises we make to each other. We have promised our God, the wider world community and our children that we would work for peace.

Some Unitarian Universalists believe that the best way to work for peace is through the political system, and they become Democrats, or Republicans. Soon they end up rationalizing the policies of the Democratic politicians, or the Republican politicians, and presuming that they only "realistic" way to peace is to continue to play the two party political game.

For me, both of the parties are morally bankrupt. To realize our commitment for peace we need to ask the question, what is the source of violence? How can I contribute to ending the cycle of violence? When we say that we wish to build religious community that presents an alternative to the dominant culture, what do we mean? Do we limit our purpose to providing a respite from the rat race? Do we mean it when we say that religious community is intended to witness to the transformation of the world?

If we commit ourselves to not "studying war no more" perhaps we should begin to study peace. I offer this resource to that end.

In his review of the "The parable of the tribes: The problem of power in social evolution" by Andrew Bard Schmookler, Michael Sky writes:

Imagine a group of tribes living within reach of one another. If all choose the way of peace, then all may live in peace. But what if all but one chooses peace?

So begins this paradigm-bending book, an elegant theory of social evolution, as well as a brilliant prescription for modern peacemakers. Schmookler not only accounts for the origins of the ancient cycle of human violence, he provides a path from domination, competition, and unilateral decision-making to partnership, cooperation, and multilateralism. As Schmookler guides the reader through possible answers to the parable, it becomes clear that, when faced with violence, whether one chooses to fight back, surrender, or run away, each "solution" tends to spread the power dynamics of violence through the system. Even the most peaceful culture, when forced to defend itself, must shift to that degree of militarism deemed necessary for survival.

The liberating message for peacemakers is that violence is neither a hard-wired aspect of human nature nor God the Father's indelible curse on humankind; rather, violence arose as a regrettable solution to human conflicts and has since spread from person to person and culture and culture like a social virus, or meme. By focusing on what Schmookler calls "the problem of power in social evolution," we can chart a new course through personal and political conflicts and find lasting, nonviolent answers to the parable's dilemma.

What does the making of soup have to teach us about the ministry of a congregation?

In past posts I have probed the question of growing Unitarian Universalism, and have suggested that there isn't a magic bullet.  If Unitarian Universalism wants to grow we must find ways to both increase our numbers and at the same time "grow" in depth of religious understanding, in commitment to the each other, and in involvement in the wider community.  These can not be separate things, we can't postpone paying attention to the quality of lay and ordained leadership, while we spend money on marketing that will increase the number of first time visitors.  When marketing a service rather than a product, the quality of the service is key.  Advertising only raises interest in checking out the service, the consumer will decide whether or not to buy (or subscribe) to that service based on their relationship to other consumers, and to the people supplying the service.  The Uncommon Denomination must be uncommonly good.
One of the ways that we can understand the relationship between growth in numbers and qualitative growth is to look at the relationship between attracting new Unitarian Universalists and retaining Unitarian Universalist commitment for the long haul.
To attract people to Unitarian Universalism we need to pay attention to seekers.  We need to welcome them, to help them find connections to other people in community, to answer their questions and overcome their fears.  The worship service oriented toward those who are new Unitarian Universalism introduces religious liberalism, and celebrates the seekers discovery of a welcoming home in a different kind of religious community.

Unfortunately that same sort of worship service gets old quick.  Once a person has become acquainted with the Unitarian Universalists they begin to seek religious depth, and spiritual growth that goes beyond new UU,  seven principles, and famous people. The "welcome to seekers" worship service becomes less and less "relevant" to those who have decided to journey among Unitarian Universalists. 

On the other hand many of our congregations have services devoted to sustaining a community of committed Unitarian Universalists.  Sermons on questions of depth are offered week after week, sermons that challenge the audience to decision, worship services that celebrate the gathered community but provide little or no introduction to Unitarian Universalism.  With a excellent preacher these congregations might attract a large number of visitors and some of those visitors may return, but nothing in the worship itself introduces the visitor to religious liberalism, or speaks to their seeking for a spiritual home.
Can we do both?  I don't think we can, at least not in the same worship service.  We may want to look at the experience of some of our larger churches that have different worship services, some pitched at seekers, and others pitched at those who are committed to their own spiritual journey in the context of that community. 

There is more to say,  and I will return to this topic soon.

John Dean has exposed the rotten core of the new conservatism. They aren't conservatives in sense of preserving the rights and liberties of individuals. They aren't conservatives in the sense of believing that that government is best that governs least. No! they are authoritarians, who will use any means to achieve their ends. They are conservatives in the sense that elitist and controlling sense that was personified by that antithesis of religious liberalism John Calvin.

Here is what John Dean says about the new conservatives:

Today's Republican policies are antithetical to bedrock conservative fundamentals. There is nothing conservative about preemptive wars or disregarding international law by condoning torture. Abandoning fiscal responsibility is now standard operating procedure. Bible-thumping, finger-pointing, tongue-lashing attacks on homosexuals are not found in Russell Kirk's classic conservative canons, nor in James Burham's guides to conservative governing.

John W. Dean, op-ed, Boston Globe 7.14.06, thanks to Philocrites.

Calvin had a major influence on authoritarian thought on the new nation of America. The Americans were not about to listen to apologists for royalty and inherited wealth. There dissenting tradition and the abundance of land to be stolen from the natives made European classism based on inheritance unattractive. Calvin argued for elitism and oligarchic power as a consequence of merit, God given merit to be precise.

Calvin had about the same relation to the Protestant reformation as Napoleon Bonaparte did to the French Revolution. He was too young to be a leader in the beginning stages of the movement, but he played the role of giving order and suppressing radical elements at a critical stage after the movement had spread. His conception of how religious elites should relate to the rest of the population was his lasting influence on Protestant thought and on our country beginning in the colonial period,

Calvin assumed that God is all knowing, and all powerful. His God both knew and determined who was going to be saved and who was going to hell. Calvin looked at his fellow humans and decided that most would be damned and only a few would be saved.
He argued that we could not know who was damned and saved based on their actions, after all they might be faithless and unregenerate sinners who were trying to earn heaven by "good works." Being kind, gentle, a peace maker and a courageous champion for justice counted for little for this apologist for power (his biographies indicate that he had none of these qualities himself.) So God saved people by unmerited grace, not by any redeeming attitude, ethical act, or spiritual quality that could be discerned.

What could be discerned was God's justice. Calvin argued that those whom God had chosen for redemption would be more upright, and law abiding and those whom God had damned would degenerate into drunkenness, debauchery, poverty and stupidity. So while we could not know for sure who was damned and who was saved, we could make a good guess. Some would be blessed by their upright and law abiding conduct and become rich and powerful, and while the damned would be illiterate, impoverished, laboring people who were unruly with a strong tendency toward crime and mayhem.

Godly government was by the godly, who ruled over the ungodly. The godly knew what was best, and the ungodly was incapable of knowing what was good for them. So in our colonial period we witness a Puritan elite that held slaves, murdered Indians, and engaged in land speculation with forged documents to enrich themselves, but they were blessed by God and they were pillars of our First Parish Churches. The ungodly on the other hand joined dissenting churches and withdrew their allegiance from the elite. In time the North Americans made a revolution and disestablished the elite's church, but the ideas of Calvin had struck deep roots in our consciousness, and when ever white Americans need to control some chaos we see the notion of an elite of Godly merit resurrected.

The word Puritan has come to mean a lot of things, it originally described an attempt to purify religious community of corruption, to reestablish the New Testament church. But it has come to mean the use of the state power to enforce control over peoples ethical, moral and life style choices based on narrow moralism. Puritanism had both a liberating and a controlling side, and is fracture into religious liberalism versus a Calvinist authoritarianism has marked U.S. history since the American Revolution.

As we take note of hypocrisy and corruption of the new authoritarian "conservative" elite, it is tempting to conclude that they don't take Christian moralism seriously, and that their alliance with the Christian right is mainly for political advantage. Tempting but that analysis underestimates the theological rationalizations of the elite, and assumes that they know see their own conduct as unethical and destructive. The elite justify their behavior by the ends that they are pursuing, and any violence, any lie, any allegiance of convenience and any sleaze is okay if it serves God, Free Enterprise and their own God given merit.

I note a consistency with the new authoritarian "conservative" elite and the way Calvinists have justified their actions for over four hundred years. Calvinism was and is a theology that justifies authoritarianism, and the elites that have felt justified by its doctrines enslaved Africa, licensed pirates to prey on the Catholic Spanish, murdered Indians for land, waged wars of aggression based on Holy War rationales, set up colonial empires, and exploited immigrant labor including children in their mills. More recently they have misinterpreted the Bible to justify homophobia, sexism, and the destruction of the social welfare system while giving theological warrant to vicious foreign policies.

They act like thieves and bullies. . .and insist that they are meritorious and have the God given right to rule over an unruly world. Not much different from John Calvin himself.

Alice Blair Wesley writes "Religious liberals put less emphasis on formal beliefs and more on practical living. Our interest is in deeds, not creeds. We appreciate the biblical text, "Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only."

How do we understand "deeds not creeds?" Is this a narrow call for everyone to be involved in the work for social justice? While working for social justice is a good thing, for religious liberals it must arise from and be an expression of our spiritual lives. It can not be a substitute for a spiritual life. Doing justice work must be soul work.

So what did "deeds not creeds" mean to Unitarians when they first used this term. I think Unitarians like James Freeman Clarke meant lived religion, something closer to what Sharon Salzburg means when she writes:

A way to discover intimacy with ourselves and all of life is to live with integrity, basing our lives on a vision of compassionate non-harming. When we dedicate ourselves to actions that do not hurt ourselves or others, our lives become all of one piece, a "seamless garment" with nothing separate or disconnected in the spiritual reality we discover.

In order to live with integrity, we must stop fragmenting and compartmentalizing our lives. Telling lies at work and expecting great truths in meditation is nonsensical. Using our sexual energy in a way that harms ourselves or others, and then expecting to know transcendent love in another arena, is mindless. Every aspect of our lives is connected to every other aspect of our lives. This truth is the basis for an awakened life.

When we live with integrity, we further enhance intimacy with ourselves by being able to rejoice, taking active delight in our actions.

For the Unitarians, who with Clarke helped create our distinctive way of being religious, it didn't matter what one believed in a dogmatic sense, but rather what counted was the religion one lived in the world. "Deeds not creeds" wasn't about works righteousness, or social action. It was about lived religion.

Forrest Gump died and went to Heaven.
When he got to the pearly gates,
Saint Peter told him that new rules were in effect
due to the advances in education on Earth.
In order to gain admittance a prospective must answer three questions.

Why don't you listen and see if you know the answers to the questions;

1. Name two days of the week that begin with "T."
........................................................................
2. How many seconds are in a year?
.........................................................................
3. What is God's first name?

Forrest thought for a few minutes and answered,
"The two days of the week that begin with 'T' are
'Today' and 'Tomorrow.'
There are twelve seconds in a year.
And God has two first names; they are 'Andy' and 'Howard.' "

Saint Peter said, "Okay, I'll buy Today and Tomorrow.
Even though it's not the answer I expected, your answer is correct.
But how did you get twelve seconds in a year, and why did you ever think that God's first name is either Andy or Howard?"

Forrest responded, "Well, January 2nd, February 2nd, March 2nd,
etc......"

"OK, I'll give you that one, too," said Saint Peter,
"but what about the God's first name stuff?"

Forrest said, "Well, from the song,
'Andy walks with me, Andy talks with me, Andy tells me I am his own...'

and the prayer, 'Our Father, who art in Heaven, Howard be thy name...' "

Saint Peter let him in without any further questions,

and so it is with our congregation,
The Treasure Coast Unitarian Universalist Church

we let you ask your own questions,
and we find your answers interesting,
and delightful

And the result is we discover how creative and innovative we really are.

Which is why we delight when the time for offering comes.

It is a time for us to explore our creativity, to surprise ourselves with our generosity, and to share in this community of caring.

From a list of jokes circulated by Ministers some years ago, I have seen posted on Huumor list - adopted for offering

When I was a relatively new minister,  I had lots of confidence that if someone articulated a particular theology then what they said they believed would affect their attitudes and their behavior.  So I was teaching a new members class and I outlined several different orientations toward "the purpose of religious community."  Some examples included:  religious communities that aim to change people from one way of being to another;  religious communities that aimed to help people grow their own inner potential and religious communities that aimed to change the world.  Included on my list, was a suggestion of what I thought was a very un-Unitarian Universalist way of being religious community, a place that offered people refuge from the world, a place to find some kind of peace.

I had used this schema at Arlington Street Church and in Indiana, and my new to Unitarian Universalism students were all agreed, the purpose of church was to help people grow, and to support efforts to transform the world.  My members were choosing the expected options,  and coincidentally these options are what the ministerial fellowship committee uses to define ministry.  It wasn't until during my third year in ministry that a number of more senior members of the congregation began to take my class.  They had heard from the newer members that it was worthwhile, and they felt they needed this experience as well.

When the topic of the purpose of the church came up in our class, these elders were bold enough to say why they came to church.  And more than a few of them said refuge, sanctuary, respite.  I was taken aback.  These were pillars of the congregation.  They were Religious Humanists in the Manifesto II sense of that word, and dutiful social action advocates.  Surely they came for intellectual and ethical growth and to advance the liberal social agenda.  As we discussed their point of view,  it became clear that they supported the mission of the congregation, that they were interested in personal and intellectual growth, and while they were suspicious of the word "spiritual" they were seeking to become more open, more generous, more aware and more connected to themselves, to other people and to the cosmos.

Knowing that they claimed that they came for refuge, and knowing that nothing in their theology suggested escapism, gnosticism, or monasticism,  I began to observe these elders more closely seeking an answer to my puzzlement.  I was reading  "Four Spiritualities: Expressions of Self, Expressions of Spirit : A Psychology of Contemporary Spiritual Choice" (Peter Tufts Richardson) at the time.  Peter Richardson a long time Unitarian Universalist minister had studied how personality shapes and forms our spiritual choices using Jungian psychology as his guide.  Peter suggested that introverts may share the same world view as Extroverts but they will approach it in an introverted fashion.  And it dawned on me, the introvert might experience religious community as a place that they can be introverted, a refuge from an extroverted world.  I saw my own extroversion in context, most Americans are extroverted, and while I may have major criticisms of the dominant world view, I share this relational dynamic.  The minority introverts might have cause to experience my presumptions as oppressive.  They needed time to re-energize before going into the world.  We all have an introverted side as well as an extroverted side, but some of prefer going out to world, or going inside ourselves. In my worship planning I should appeal to both,  I should become more conscious of both the extroverts and the introverts (as well as the sensors and intuitives, etc.) in worship, and in teaching.

The UUA President, William Sinkford speaks of worship services in which "sermons about real-life issues are becoming more common, appealing not just to our minds but also calling us to be our best selves as we go back out into the world and face another week."  I don't experience our worship services as a respite from the world,  but I am not an introvert (although Bill has made that assumption about me.)  I don't think Bill has a different understanding of church than I do, but I need the world in order to think,  but he needs some time away from the world to regroup.  For a different take on Bill's statement read TheLivelyTradition.

When we speak of the growth of Unitarian Universalism we sometimes give the impression than it is a matter of techniques that we can master (have you heard about pink coffee cups for visitors?) or programs that the Association of Congregations can implement (one, two, three fast start congregations coming to major growth metropolis near you.)  We can also look for magic bullets,  our UUA staff has lately discovered marketing and we all love to see Unitarian Universalism up on big blue billboards.  I think that these "techniques" are all good, sort of like the "365 ways you can save the earth" are all good.  I read that book and I recycle.  But recycling will not change our relationship to the cosmos, because to live in harmony with the earth is a religious task.  It requires conversion, a change in our habits of the heart.

Growing Unitarian Universalism also requires a conversion, both a conversion of individuals (to becoming UU evangelists) and a conversion of whole faith community.  One small beginning toward this conversion is to recognize that growth is not simply quantitative,  it is more than just numerical growth.  If we concentrate on numbers, we will never grow.

One of the reasons many of our congregations do not grow is that their community life is conflicted and the way the leadership handles this conflict is to avoid the conflict.  Another reason that many of our congregations do not grow is our ministers and our lay leaders see their task as providing services for the members, they see themselves as providers of religious services to needy consumers.  This way of being church accepts the spiritual immaturity of those who come among us, and maintains that immaturity.  Another reason is that congregations don't grow is that congregation doesn't stand for anything in the world,  that congregation does not live its message.

Visitors come, they are given pink coffee cups and they experience the congregation as not walking its talk, and not providing a challenge to personal and interpersonal growth.  And they leave.  If we concentrate on numerical growth alone, we create a revolving door.

Loren Meade, in his book More Than Numbers, The Way Churches Grow, argues that congregations can not simply grow by having people sign the membership book.  We need to look at both quantitative and qualitative measures of growth, and he suggests four "ways churches grow."  These four are numerical growth, maturational growth, organic growth, and incarnational growth.

What Mead calls numerical growth includes not only voting membership but attendance at worship, participants in programs and events, increases in the number of programs offered, increases in financial giving.

Maturational growth reflects change in how the congregation conceives itself and how it members relate to each other and the world.  More members think "How can I contribute to the mission of this church?" rather than "What am I getting from this church?"  There is a conversion of the leading members from thinking about the members as consumers of church services to thinking about the members as participating in ministry together or in Mead's words "from the consumer orientation where members expect the organization to deliver them spiritual care, to that of contributing ones unique talents and gifts to others through a sense of personal ministry."

Organic growth refers to the internal health of the congregation, it a measure of the congregations ability to handle internal conflict and change.  A mature congregation is more able to maintain itself as an institution, as a living organism able to engage with other institutions of society, a congregation that "plays well with others."

Incarnational growth is the measure of a congregations ability to walk its talk.  In the case of Unitarian Universalist congregations it would indicate an ability to apply religious liberalism and make it a living faith both inside and outside the congregation.  When embody our faith, when we live the words of our affirmation, then the congregation witnesses its values not in simply making statements about what it thinks about social justice issues but in many concrete ways that indicate its caring, and courage to be an alternative to the dominant society.

"More Than Numbers: The Ways Churches Grow" (Loren B. Mead)

I have written about Richard Grigg before, because I think his To Re-enchant the World; A Philosophy of Unitarian Universalism contains important insights into the power of a Unitarian Universalist religious congregation to support spiritual development and support the formation of a new way of being religious.  Grigg introduces the concept of inclusive pluralism which he believes is a characteristic of communities that allow multiple ways of being religious and in which the individuals in that society are permitted to be influenced by those multiple ways of being religious.  Now that ck over at ArbitraryMarks is writing about pluralism, I thought I would post again on this topic.

On the other hand a society may have multiple religious communities in which the members respect each others right to practice an alternative religion, but in which boundaries are maintained.  He argues that that society practices exclusive pluralism.  He argues that contemporary North American society is decidedly pluralistic, there are many religions and they interact with one another, but an individual is expected to pick one religion to the exclusion of all others.  Most Americans would find a Unitarian Universalist who said:  "I am a earth centered religious humanist who is deeply involved in both Native American liberation theology and Unitarian Universalist Christianity" to be sort of weird, indecisive, and hopelessly eclectic.  But there is a difference between eclecticism and allowing oneself the participate in more than one religious path and permitting ones spirituality to be formed by multiple centers.  Eclectics borrow from here and there, without respecting the integrity of the various sources from which they appropriate.  But one may have an integrated spiritual life and be influence by quite discrete religious centers.

Grigg writes of two societies:
We find a clear example of inclusive pluralism among the ancient Greeks.  Greek religion operated on multiple levels, and a single individual could participate at each level.  For example, there were rites performed at a family altar.  There were sacrifices and rituals that were the provence of an entire city.  There were rituals on behalf of the Greeks as a whole (the famous games at Olympia, for example, centered around sacrifice to a god.)  In addition to all of this, in the later part of Ancient Greek history, an individual Greek might well choose to join one of the "mystery religions,"so called because they involved secret initiations and the transmission of mysteries, mysteries often tied to a successful journey through the underworld after death.  One might join a mystery cult dedicated to Dionysus, or Demeter, or Mithras.  This is an "inclusive pluralism," then, because it is constituted many religious sites and practices, but an individual can happily participate in any number of them.  He or she is not forced to pick just one religion out of the pluralistic milieu and embrace it as his or her sole spiritual path.
and then there is Japan where:
"[O]ne can have a Shinto wedding and a Buddhist funeral.  There is no sense of religions being wholly discrete institutional entitities whose boundaries prevent participation in more one religion at a time."

Many Unitarian Universalist congregations share some appropriate humor at the time of the offering,  I try to tie the humor to some characteristic of our Unitarian Universalist practice.

Here is one that is a favorite among several congregations.

The Pope vs. Moishe*

About a century or two ago, the Pope challenged the Jewish community of Rome to a debate.

The Jews looked around for a champion who could defend their faith, but no one wanted to volunteer. It was too risky. So they finally picked an old man named Moishe who spent his life sweeping up after people to represent them. Being old and poor, he had less to lose, so he agreed. He asked only for one addition to the rules of debate. Not being used to saying very much, he asked that neither side be allowed to talk. The Pope agreed.

The day of the great debate came. Moishe and the Pope sat opposite each other for a full minute before the Pope raised his hand and showed three fingers. Moishe looked back at him and raised one finger. The Pope waved his fingers in a circle around his head. Moishe pointed to the ground where he sat. The Pope pulled out a wafer and a glass of wine. Moishe pulled out an apple. The Pope stood up and said, "I give up. This man is too good. The Jews win."

An hour later, the cardinals were all around the Pope asking him what happened. The Pope said, "First I held up three fingers to represent the Trinity. He responded by holding up one finger, to remind me that there was still one God common to both our religions. Then I waved my finger around me to show him, that God was all around us. He responded by pointing to the ground, showing that God was also right here with us. I pulled out the wine and the wafer to show that God absolves us from our sins. He pulled out an apple to remind me of original sin. He had an answer for everything. What could I do?"

Meanwhile, the Jewish community had crowded around Moishe, amazed that this old, almost feeble-minded man had done what all their scholars had insisted was impossible. "What happened?" they asked.

"Well," said Moishe, "first he said to me that the Jews had three days to get out of here. I told him that not one of us was leaving. Then he told me that this whole city would be cleared of Jews. I let him know that we were staying right here."

"And then?" asked a woman.

"I don't know," said Moishe. "He took out his lunch and I took out mine."

And then I say some thing like "In our congregation we realize that people have different perceptions of the same event.  This leads to differences in religious understanding.  And the best way for people to understand one another is to listen to each other.

In celebration of our way of being religious, our offering will be taken and received.

*From Belief Net Jokes

I didn't see this when it first came out.  Perhaps that is because I don't read the (secular) political blogs.  But I think it is significant. 

Is it possible that blogs can help change the way politics is done from Broadcast politics (dumb, dumber, dumbest = winner) to participatory politics in which people are actually engaged in discussing the issues that impact their lives?  The Revolution won't be televised, but maybe it will be posted and commented on.

Rev. David called all the children down to the front of the church to hear a "Children's Message." He wanted to talk to the children about planning ahead, and he decided that he would use a squirrel as an example.

"Now children, see if you can guess what I am thinking about," he began. "It lives in trees and eats nuts. [pause] It is gray and jumps from branch to branch. [pause] It has a long bushy tail and buries nuts in the ground in the fall so it will have something to eat all winter long. [pause] Now raise your hand if you know what I'm thinking of!"

When it became clear that none of the children was going to raise a hand, Rev. David called on one of the older girls who was sitting in front, saying to her, "What do you think I'm talking about?"

The girl replied, "Well, I know you want me to say that you're thinking about the seven principles, but it sure sounds like you're describing a squirrel."

(A story by an unknown author in my children's story collection. Any clues to the author would be greatly appreciated.)

It is good to remind ourselves that the Christian right believes that the Second Coming of Christ will be ushered in by a war in that region of the world in which the Eastern Mediterranean meets Western Asia, which we often call the Middle East.

The present state of Israel was planted in this region by European religious colonists based on an ideology, namely that Jews needed a state of their own because non Jews were hopelessly Anti Jewish, and that God had given this land to their religious ancestors.  This movement called Zionism had originated in a Europe in the nineteenth century during a period in which national states were tapping into the anti-human ideologies of nationalism and racism in order to enlist their peoples for imperial adventures.  Almost two millennia of Christian anti Jewish teaching fed into the new racism.  As the nationalism and racism of the Europeans was being intensified, Jews began to migrate to the Americas in large numbers.  The Zionist movement recruited smaller numbers to go to Palestine and plant small colonies among the mostly Arab indigenous population.  The area was ruled by foreign empires, the Turks before World War One, and the British after that war.

The genocidal violence experienced by European Jewry before and during World War Two led by Germany's Nazis but supported by far too many Europeans and Americans led to the consolidation of Zionism among the Jewish people's of the world and to their support for an violent insurgency to create a Zionist State on the Eastern Mediterranean.  The British labeled the irregulars who led the insurgency terrorists.

What I know most deeply about Unitarian Universalism I learned in Sunday School, and what I learned includes a vision of a human community.  Since I was a child I have understood that nationalism and racism are ideologies that are anathema to the core values of religious liberalism.  We are called to witness to that human beings can live in peace and understanding, transcending ideologies that pit one people against another.

The problem with Zionism as a response to the racism and nationalism of the European Christians was that it nurtured a racist and nationalist world view among the Jews.  The state of Israel conceives itself as an exclusive Jewish State with a theological mandate to occupy and clear the land for Jews.  The Palestinians (whose ancestors were the people of the Bible, who became both Moslems and Christians, who trace their families back to the ancient people of this land who were once the Canaanites, Hebrews, and Samaritans) were replaced by force by Europeans.  The state of Israel is a European type state, driven by modernist technologies and guided by a world view that envisions all traditional economies to be primitive because subsistence and living close to nature can't be converted into cash.  This is not the way of life or the world view of the ancient Hebrews.  The Biblical mandate is a convenient hook to claim land, but it is not taken seriously as a spiritual guide.

The opposition movement that arose among the Palestinians also turned to racism and violence.  Zionism is a response to European racism and nationalism.  In turn, Zionists advocate an ideology that mobilizes people based on fundamentalist religion and narrow racial nationalism.  The Islamic opposition mobilize the fight against the Zionists on the basis of fundamentalism and racial nationalism.  In our country the Christian right chose to support Israel,  in order to usher in the end of the world.  The secular liberals chose to support Israel out of guilt for the holocaust.  The secular conservatives chose to support Israel because the Israelis are part of the multinational corporate community.  I pray that religious liberals might refrain from joining with these supporters of nationalism and violence, instead we should witness to our own values.  I pray that we can contribute to breaking the spiral  of reactive ideologies based on racism, nationalism and violence.

Terrorism is a word that means using force and violence against civilians in order to weaken their allegiance to the political power.  A terrorist is a terrorist whether or not s/he wears is a member of a cult, a opposition political party or a state.  The United States and Israel may wish to describe their opponents as terrorists, but by using force and violence against civilians to intimadate and coerce they forfeit the moral high ground.

The only way to overcome terrorism is create an international consensus to stop the use of force and violence against civilians.  In order to overcome anti Jewish racism we must also overcome anti Arab racism and vice versa.  There will be no winners in a struggle of one Racist Nationalism against another Racist Nationalism.  No short term foreign policy objectives can justify leaving our religious liberalism in our inner most closet while we go into the world and play politics.  As religious liberals it is time to come out and announce that the Apocalypse has come, and the Peace that we seek is among us and within us, but we must give it voice.  The Messiah will not be running for election in 2008, we can't hope that some Democrat or Republican will lead us to a just peace in the "Middle East" without our voices being raised.  We have soul work to do.  Let us overcome the notion that we can find peace through violence, or establish justice through gaining power over others.

Boys in the Bands reads my suggestion (of a independent funding center for church growth) as suggesting that what is retarding enterprising new ministries among the Unitarian Universalists is simply a lack of funds.  He suggests that the problem is more attitude than money.

Being a big fan of transformed world views, I won't argue with a call for better attitudes.  Money can not substitute for the vision of the church planter (or community minister) but funds can enable the minister-entrepreneur's work.  In my day as a community organizer, and earlier as in plant union organizer,  we weren't dependent on the funders to pay our own rent or buy our groceries.  But we did need some money to rent a hall, install the phones,  and run the presses.  Unions like churches looked forward to future dues to realize a return on their investment, but union staffs unlike the UUA staff were accountable to a delegate body that had a vital interest in organizing.  I observe that the average delegate to the UUA General Assembly is about as interested in saving the whales as they are in starting new churches.  They like both  ideas, and they'll vote for a resolution to express that they want somebody to do something about both good ideas. Neither whales or new congregations is what we call a lived priority to most of the leaders of our present congregations.

But what if money wasn't involved?  What if everybody God called into the Unitarian Universalist ministry was living off trust funds conveniently gathered by plundering ancestors and handed down for a good purpose. Well there is a matter of permission giving.  We still believe that ministers even minister-entreprenuers should be in relation to Unitarian Universalism.  The new starters I know seek to gain some kind of permission, some recognition that their work is legitimate, and recognized.  Our association of congregations provides recognition in two ways; there is lateral relationship, that is when a local congregation (or cluster) gives recognition that this is indeed a real ministry and it should be honored.  the other is when the the UUA through its staff, its Board or one of its committees gives such recognition (vertical relationship.)  For our entrepreneur-ministers the former is hit and miss, and the latter is limited to those who satisfy some priority.

LT writing in Lively Tradition suggests that perhaps the "Institute for Progressive Enterpreneurial Ministry" could be about information gathering, and training.  Even such a small step would constitute enabling, permission giving and recognition that would empower all of our minister-enterprenuers even those who are independently wealthy or who married well, or whose tent making day job pays big bucks.

Sometimes projects do need a grant to make them fly.  Christine Robinson writing over at iMinister has an exciting, well thought out project that needs funding.  The Albuquerque proposal will remind those who have followed UU extension efforts of the A.Powell Davis project to create spin off by proving worship over the radio and setting up Sunday Schools in localities.  The Davis effort led to several strong churches.  The present Albuquerque proposal rethinks that experiment for the present technological possibilities and the local extension potential.  This proposal involves both minister and lay people in an outreach effort, but alas it isn't one of the approved growth strategies.

The Daily Scribe has gone and "hard launched."  I am not sure what that means, so I suppose that it sort of like a dramatic presentation.  The players rehearse and rehearse and they then there is opening night.

Hard launch? The Website is up and working, it has been visible to all who care to find it, and like dramatic rehearsals there were blogs to be seen, read, and hopefully enjoyed.  Like the rehearsals, one might even find the not yet launched entertaining as the kinks are worked out.  So the Daily Scribe was up and working and one could read it, but now we can publicly  proclaim The Daily Scribe Is Here.  I am a scribe on the Daily Scribe.

I have no idea how to put a banner on my web site, but I am willing to learn.

I am what the Myers Briggs folks call an Extroverted Intuitive Feeling Perceiver which means I have more insights than I have decisions. In my post yesterday, I suggested that a foundation might be a helpful instrument to raise and administer the money for what Unitarian Universalists prefer to call extension. Others might call it church growth, mission and evangelism or some other name.

I was responding to an idea advanced by LivelyTradition, which had suggested that we might support minister-enterprenuers who had a vision for a congregation (or a community ministry) and were willing to invest their time and make sacrifices in order to bring to bring that congregation (or community ministry) into being. I was sharing a insight that I have experienced the staff at 25 to be risk averse. (Which may be an feature not a fault when it comes to managing a non profit service organization.) The "foundation" would not share the mission of the UUA which is to serve the existing Unitarian Universalist congregations and be responsive to the complaints of congregational leaders. It would be guided by a mission to stimulate grass roots efforts at growing Unitarian Universalism. I suspect that some new starts don't stand a chance for funding under our system of anxious governance because they might be controversial.

Two different examples based on my own experience. There was a proposal for a new start in a large city of over a million people. The community was racially and culturally diverse with the dominant culture being a numerical minority. A minister of color who grew up in that city and had the support of several dozen Unitarian Universalists and had pledges of money in six figures before s/he put forward a proposal for a new start in that city. There was a congregation in that city and the minister and the congregation supported the new start. But the staff at 25 thought it was risky, both for that minister of colors career, and for the stability of the existing congregation. The staff anticipated failure and controversy, to which the minister and the folks on the ground were oblivious and for their own good they must be protected.

Then there was a minister raising minor children in a small town decides she can't move and therefore can't avail herself of the search process. What to do? She gathers a house church that grows and decides to apply for congregational status. She talks to staff at 25. They respond that her new start might be a good candidate for the extension program (it was a few years ago) but they would choose the extension minister. The gathering congregation responded that they had chosen their future pastor, and she was their founding mother.

I could go on and on. Extension efforts that got almost there but couldn't go over the hump because their three years had come and gone and now they were supposed to be self sufficient. Spin offs that weren't eligible for extension support because the sponsoring congregation was loaning their called Assistant Minister and the extension program demanded a free hand in choosing the minister.

I note that LivelyTradition already has a name for the foundation. I like the "Institute for Progressive Enterpreneurial Ministry" but my experience with fundraising tells me that what ever comes out of this effort might end up with a name chosen to please the donors.
And LivelyTradition has some proposals "for an inventory of progressive church planters and plants active now, surveying the literature of recent experience, researching, enabling training, identifying planters, building networks of planters into learning communities, developing and clarifying a visionary core group." Perhaps some of these projects could be housed in a theological school and students could find some interesting work interviewing, cataloging and hosting conferences of church planters and community ministers.

Funds are raised based on a vision, donors do not give to maintain existing programs as much as to create new programs. I support the UUA's efforts at Capital Fund Drives, but these efforts have shown many who are willing to give money but are looking for something that looks well thought out, exciting and not business as usual.

The LivelyTradition asks the question does Unitarian Universalism have a growth strategy, and observes that we don't. The President of the UUA has said that we are in an experimental mode, trying out different things, but that at this time we have no clear idea about how to grow Unitarian Universalism.

LivelyTradition suggests some changes that would allow growth to come from decentralized ministry led startups, a notion that other bloggers including this one have suggested in different ways before (Boys in the Bands, Unity and Just Another Unitarian Universalist come to mind. I think that the suggestions are good ones, and I have and will continue to agitate the Ministerial Fellowship Committee about its rules that privilege full time settled ministry in existing congregations and marginalize community ministers, as well as what LivelyTradition calls "church planting specialists." The MFC has a responsibility to assure a quality ministry for the Unitarian Universalist congregations, and it has conceived that task too conservatively.

I would suggest that the UUA staff has had a growth strategy in the past (subsidize extension ministers), and that strategy did not meet expectations. The UUA staff adjusted their growth strategy to what they thought was the failing of the old strategy and that adjustment (fast start of full sized congregations) also failed to meet expectations.

So now we are in experimental mode. Perhaps what we have learned is that the UUA staff can not come up with a comprehensive growth strategy without involving all of the people who have ideas. Perhaps what we have learned is that new starts of congregations and ministries involves risk, and that the risk is beyond the tolerance of a centrally directed bureaucratic non profit that is accountable to an General Assembly and to avoid risk and controversy it closes down the "experiments" when the results don't meet expectations.

Personally, I think that what we need is a foundation dedicated to Unitarian Universalist growth. This foundation would have a Board of Trustees devoted to the mission of stimulating church planting specialists, and local efforts to create new congregations, and community ministries that involve outreach (mission) informed by Unitarian Universalist values. The Board would not be elected by Districts or the General Assembly and the Executive Director would not be involved with a risk adverse association of congregations led by ministers competing for scare resources.

The Divinity School address given on July 15, 1838 was a turning point for Unitarianism in the United States. A Unitarianism that took this message to heart could no longer be simply liberal Christianity without the Trinity and with salvation by character development. A different understanding of authority for discerning religious truths began to develop and a different understanding of the nature of revelation.

Written for an audience of theological students, Emerson who was in transition between congregational ministry and his writing and lecturing career urged the would be ministers to assure that congregants are offered a living religion rather one that a religion about past events, and ancient revelations.The emphasis on individual experience as the primary authority for judging religious truths begins to take form among Unitarians in the decades that followed the address.

Emerson expressed concern that preachers seldom help their congregants see "that he is an infinite Soul; that the earth and heavens are passing into his mind; that he is drinking forever the soul of God."

Emerson directly challenged the prevailing supernatural rationalism with its God in the heavens that has little to do with the earth except to send revelation for our moral uplift. The notion that all of nature reveals miracles and that we do not need a supernatural God who will break the laws of nature in order to impress us with his Truth begins to take form within Unitarianism as a result of Emerson's speech.

Emerson writes these words that begins to form a new understanding of Jesus in our movement, "Historical Christianity has fallen into the error that corrupts all attempts to communicate religion. As it appears to us, and as it has appeared for ages, it is not the doctrine of the soul, but an exaggeration of the personal, the positive, the ritual. It has dwelt, it dwells, with noxious exaggeration about the person of Jesus. The soul knows no persons. It invites every man to expand to the full circle of the universe, and will have no preferences but those of spontaneous love. But by this eastern monarchy of a Christianity, which indolence and fear have built, the friend of man is made the injurer of man. The manner in which his name is surrounded with expressions, which were once sallies of admiration and love, but are now petrified into official titles, kills all generous sympathy and liking. All who hear me, feel, that the language that describes Christ to Europe and America, is not the style of friendship and enthusiasm to a good and noble heart, but is appropriated and formal, - paints a demigod, as the Orientals or the Greeks would describe Osiris or Apollo. Accept the injurious impositions of our early catachetical instruction, and even honesty and self-denial were but splendid sins, if they did not wear the Christian name."

The address contained so many departures from the established Unitarian ways of thinking that Emerson wasn't invited back to Harvard for decades. But in time his ideas had influence that continues to this day.

Beverly Tatum has offered a contrasting view of racial identity development between "Blacks" and "Whites."  She does not offer such models for Native Americans, Japanese Americans, Americans of Palestinean descent,  the many ways  of being Latino/Latina/Hispanic. for the many, many experiences of racial development that I can not enumerate without running our of space on my hard drive, nor does she tell us about the subtle differences between "Whites" raised in anti racist contexts, and "Whites" raised in contexts which either assume the dominant culture (most suburbanites) or active bigot homes.  In otherwords like most generalizations, this is overlooks everyones particular experience.  Nevertheless I publish it for your information. One more tool in understanding the dynamics of race in the United states.  Racial identity does not necessarily imply racism, or racial oppression.  Racism assumes that power is used either by individuals or by how individuals habitually relate to one another (institutions) to privilege one group and oppress another.

In Tatum's idea of racial development,both "Blacks" and "Whites"  learn to overcome the behavior patterns that result in perpetuating racism.  They learn to overcome, but they don't do it the same way.

http://www1.umn.edu/ohr/teachlearn/tatum.html

Categorization drawn from Beverly Daniel Tatum's two articles:

"Talking about Race, Learning about Racism:  The Application of Racial Identity Development Theory in the College Classroom."

Harvard Educational Review  62.1 (Spring 1992): 1-24.
"Teaching White Students about Racism:  The Search for White Allies and the Restoration of Hope."  Teachers College Record 95.4 (Summer 1994):  462-475.

Black Racial Identity Development

Pre-encounter:  de-emphasis on racial group membership that likely includes an internalization of stereotypes about the group
Encounter:  faced with event or events through which individuals are targets of racial slurs or social rejection by individuals and/or groups an the basis of race.
Immersion/Emersion:  (re)building of positive racial identity by seeking out history, culture and peer support within racial background; white-focused anger rises and dissipates.
Internalization:  individuals establish meaningful cross racial relationships via friendships & coalitions/
Internalization/Commitment:  translate personal sense of racial identity into a sense of commitment that sparks the discovery of a universe of ideas, cultures and experiences

White Racial Identity Development

Contact:  Limited awareness of cultural and institutional racism; personal responses to race include curiosity and fear based on images from others and on absence of real images.
Disintegration:  increased interaction and information may lead to an understanding of white privilege and advantage of being invisible as a race; guilt and anger and denial accompany discomfort at this point of understanding.
Reintegration:  may redirect the dissonance of disintegration so that people of color are blamed as source of that discomfort and will then avoid continued reflection OR may seek more information in order to understand how race/racism are constructed in society.
Pseudo-Independent:Â