Religious Liberalism and Theology: 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.

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.

"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.

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)

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.

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:  to move ahead, may disavow whiteness and/or feel alienation from white peers as this person works to replace racially related myths with accurate information.
Immersion/Emersion:  continued building of anti-racism practices and understandings via social activism within groups, classes, family, public arenas  as well as learning history of such movements; work ranges from involvement within white anti-racism groups to multiracial coalition building across.
Autonomy:  a new sense of self as a person open to new information and ways of thinking about how culture and history and economics might work; alliances crossing race are forged daily.

Writing in the Atlantic Monthly in March 2002 Charles Mann asks how did the people on the Mayflower survive the first winter, he gives this answer:

"In his history of Plymouth Colony, Bradford provided the answer: by robbing Indian houses and graves. The Mayflower first hove to at Cape Cod. An armed company staggered out. Eventually it found a recently deserted Indian settlement. The newcomers-hungry, cold, sick-dug up graves and ransacked houses, looking for underground stashes of corn. "And sure it was God's good providence that we found this corn," Bradford wrote, "for else we know not how we should have done." (He felt uneasy about the thievery, though.) When the colonists came to Plymouth, a month later, they set up shop in another deserted Indian village. All through the coastal forest the Indians had "died on heapes, as they lay in their houses," the English trader Thomas Morton noted. "And the bones and skulls upon the severall places of their habitations made such a spectacle" that to Morton the Massachusetts woods seemed to be "a new found Golgotha"-the hill of executions in Roman Jerusalem.

To the Pilgrims' astonishment, one of the corpses they exhumed on Cape Cod had blond hair. A French ship had been wrecked there several years earlier. The Patuxet Indians imprisoned a few survivors. One of them supposedly learned enough of the local language to inform his captors that God would destroy them for their misdeeds. The Patuxet scoffed at the threat. But the Europeans carried a disease, and they bequeathed it to their jailers. The epidemic (probably of viral hepatitis, according to a study by Arthur E. Spiess, an archaeologist at the Maine Historic Preservation Commission, and Bruce D. Spiess, the director of clinical research at the Medical College of Virginia) took years to exhaust itself and may have killed 90 percent of the people in coastal New England. It made a huge difference to American history. "The good hand of God favored our beginnings," Bradford mused, by "sweeping away great multitudes of the natives ... that he might make room for us."

By the time my ancestor set sail on the Mayflower, Europeans had been visiting New England for more than a hundred years. English, French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese mariners regularly plied the coastline, trading what they could, occasionally kidnapping the inhabitants for slaves. New England, the Europeans saw, was thickly settled and well defended. In 1605 and 1606 Samuel de Champlain visited Cape Cod, hoping to establish a French base. He abandoned the idea. Too many people already lived there. A year later Sir Ferdinando Gorges-British despite his name-tried to establish an English community in southern Maine. It had more founders than Plymouth and seems to have been better organized. Confronted by numerous well-armed local Indians, the settlers abandoned the project within months. The Indians at Plymouth would surely have been an equal obstacle to my ancestor and his ramshackle expedition had disease not intervened."

There are other sources that raise some questions about Mann's account. While the Pawtucket were decimated by disease, a good part of the Plymouth Colony was planted in Wampanoag and Narraganset land.  These communities had populations larger than the English settlement for at least the first two decades.  The active support of those native populations was necessary for the Plymouth Colony survival.

Was in viral hepatitis?  Perhaps, but other accounts blame small pox, which had come to these shores with the Spanish was spreading up the East Coast. What is important is how much Bradford and others in that generation shared with Pat Robinson in their self righteous assumption that God was on their side and was bringing death to natives to clear the land.  This quote indicates how early "white narcissism," began to form within the dominant culture  (the incapacity to empathize with others who are outside of one's narrow socially constructed "culture" of reference.)  The founders of the Massachusetts Colony also rejoiced to God for the ravages that disease had inflicted on the native populations.

Most often we use the term "theological education" to refer to the training up new clergy, to impart skills and learning that will shape the minister want-a-be into a fully formed minister.  Of course, we know that in reality much learning goes on after the M.Div. is awarded, that the minister who is finished learning, growing, and being formed in the spirit is finished indeed.

But we don't often think of the term "theological education" as refering to something that the professional minister shares with the laity.  In our ordinary way of thinking, theological education is done to divinity students, and then the formed minister does ministry.  But if theological education is good for clerics, why isn't it good for the whole community of the faith?  If ministry is something that a religious community does, and the professional minister is called to educate the religious community about ministry, perhaps we need to go beyond "building your own theology" and think of building the kinds of habits of the heart that William Ellery Channing writes about in the passage below.

Channing is writing about the formation of divinity students, but why not the whole people of faith?  What I find interesting about what Channing writes is his notion that "theological education" is learning to live religion.  We will see that idea become mature in the Transcendentalists who insisted that religion must be "experienced" and have consequences for one's life.  They suggested that transformative learning involves "conversion" a notion that many Unitarian Universalists would find challenging.  Channing in his words below is suggesting that the most important part of theological education is transformative learning, that the goal is to become a new person because of one's experience with religion, to be (pardon the metaphor) born again as a person who has experienced religion and now wishes to share that experience as a minister.  If we find a way to bring Channing's idea of lived religion into our practice of ministry then liberal religion would know its good news, not because we tell it, but because we would experience it.  And then it would follow that the idea of sharing that good news would not raise so many eyebrows.

Channing wrote:
"The age in which we live demands not only an enlightened but an ernest ministry. . . .By this I mean not a louder voice or a more vehement gesture: I mean no tricks of oratory; but a solemn conviction that religion is a great concern, and a solemn purpose that its claims shall be felt by others.

To suit such an age, a minister must communicate religion - not only as a result of reasoning but as a matter of experience. . . .We ought to speak of religion as something which we ourselves know.  Its influences, struggles, joys, sorrows, triumphs, should be delineated from our own history.  The life and sensibility which we would spread should be strong in our hearts.  This is the only genuine, unfailing spring of an earnest ministry.

The most  important part of theological education, even in this enlightened age, is not the communication of knowledge,  essential as that is, but the conversion and exaltation of religious knowledge into a living, practical and soul-kindling experience."

Rebecca Parker writes in "Love First" as sermon given at the Opening Convocation of Starr King School For The Ministry in September 2005. 

"We must learn again to live with reverence. Reverence is a form of love. It is a response to life that falls on its knees before the rising sun and bows down before the mountains. It puts its palms together in the presence of the night sky and the myriad galaxies and recognizes, as poet Langston Hughes tells us, "beautiful are the stars, beautiful too are the faces of my people." Reverence greets all humanity as sacred. It genuflects before the splendor of the grass and the magnificence of the trees. It respects the complexity, beauty, and magnitude of creation and does not presume to undo its intricate miracles. Instead, it gives life reverent attention, seeking to know, understand, and cooperate with life's ways.

Reverence for life has to be learned. It is not just a feeling; it is a way of life that is manifested in more than an isolated moment of appreciation for nature or awe before its destructive or creative power. Reverence involves full-fledged devotion enacted in deeds of care and responsibility. It involves knowledge, study, and attention."

Reverence for life is a spiritual attribute, and spiritual attributes are acquired through practice, by what has been called spiritual discipline.  Unitarian Universalists has experienced an increased interest in spirituality, but the interest appears to be stronger than the willingness to commit to a discipline. Parker argues that reverence for life involves knowledge, study and attention.  Acquiring reverence for life requires practicing deeds of care and responsibility for our earth and for animals and plants of our earth.  It requires practicing deeds of care and responsibility for human community, for seeking not only ways to aid each others immediate needs, but to seek ways to overcome oppressive systems that restrict the full unfolding of life.  This may require the theological task of overcoming an oppressive world view.

Parker continues:

"Our society is currently guided by a worldview that is insufficiently grounded in reverence.  Religiously, it is  a worldview that regards the world itself as trash-a planet that God is soon going to discard in a plan to wipe this world away and create a new one.  Economically, the dominant worldview regards human beings as self-interested individuals, motivated only by their personal desire to consume.  And scientifically, it sees existence as devoid of value, atomistic, disconnected, and mechanistic.  Such inadequate views are tearing our world to tatters by lack of regard for the communal character of life."

Parker argues throughout this sermon for a connection between what we do in the world, and our spiritual, theological and intellectual understanding of that world.  Reverence for life must be learned and that learning involves transformation, taking on a new identity and a new worldview.  Transformation to becoming a person who loves life in practice is more than a simple matter of doing some non controversial projects of aid to the less fortunate, or thinking some good thoughts.  It takes practice, and theological work. 

(This raises a question for me, why did the UU World cut Parker's sermon just at the point where she critiques the current religious, economic and scientific worldview?  Is it because her critique is a challenge to the views of many Unitarian Universalists who are content to spin feel good religion on top of the dominant worldview?  It can't be because of space, there is much they included that is incidental to her main point.

Debitage has some interesting thoughts about the "self" that is the product of social construction (and in a society based on domination and oppressive systems that self would reflect those social constructions) and the idea of a "real self."  Those who seek transformation (overcoming of their own and others false selves embedded in oppressive systems) should ponder her thinking about Paul's notion of "taking on Christ." 

Some times our anti oppressive work is characterized as just politics, but it is at heart theological, and the wisdom of Paul (new creation, communities of love, taking on Christ) point to a way of thinking about being a responsible and responsive self that combined with the wisdom of Jesus (the realm of God is within us, and between us if we would only realize it) that I think have much to teach us.

Rebecca Parker identifies with the religious humanist tradition, but hers is a broad and inclusive kind of humanism.  She is not intimidated by those who would define Humanism as a closed system.  Here she writes about how process theology informs her understanding of God.  Process theology is one way Unitarian Universalists do theology and it has had considerable influence on our thinking. Both Process Theology and Transcendentalism of Ralph Waldo Emerson share a panentheist understanding of divinity,  rather than a supernatural god.  The supernaturalist posits a dualistic understanding of God and nature as Parker explains.  Theism tends to be supernaturalist in orientation. 

Sometimes we hear the term "natural theism" which is I think an unusual use of term "theism."  Perhaps natural theism means a God that works through and in nature, in which case natural theism has no distinction with panentheism.

Rebecca Parker says in "Blessing the World."

To the atheist who says, "I do not believe in God," the philosopher says, "Tell me about the God you don't believe in.."  The God that process theology doesn't believe in is the old God of dualistic philosophy, whose perfection is imagined as pure spirit, unsullied by the word. untouched by change, without feeling, unmoved, all-controlling and all-knowing.  The God that process theology believes in, as developed, for example in Hartshorne's Divine Relativity, is  a creator among creators, not different inn kind from every other being.  God is not all knowing, because God can not know how each moment of subjective immediacy - each dew drop on Indra's net - will self determine until the moment has crystallized.  God is not all powerful, because each moment is the agent of its own final crystallization.

God is supreme not in knowing everything but in receiving everything, not in controlling everything but in imagining everything.  God is supreme in feeling, supreme in responsiveness.  God is the subjective moment that holds the whole together with the greatest love and the cosmic embrace that tenderly welcomes all.  Not the "unmoved mover" imagined by Aristotle but the being most moved by the world.

The Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations employs a staff person who works with congregations seeking a minister.  That staff member is the Rev. John Weston, Director of Transitions.  This is what the U.U.A. web site says about his office: "The Transitions (formerly Settlement) Office provides counsel and resources to congregations facing or planning for changes in their professional ministry and church staff, including interim ministry to serve the congregation through the transition, and advises ministers on career planning and on seeking ministerial positions. Through a Ministerial Settlement Representative in each district, the Transitions Office offers counsel and support to ministerial search committees and provides confidential information about prospective candidates."

The U.U. Enforcer writes comments on the the change of the Rev. John Weston's job title.  U.U. Enforcer writes; "Why change the name, it was an easy to understand and it described what the office does, it assists ministers to become settled in a church. But office of transitions, what, are UU ministers butterflies?  And then he argues that "the UUA is feeling bad for all of the ministers who can't get jobs so now instead of having a name that may remind folks that they are out of favor with the majority of UUs. Yes it sucks that good ministers don't have jobs, but to change the name of the office is just silly." 

I heard John describe this change in names several weeks before it was made official, and there was nothing in his explanation that would indicate that he was trying to make unsettled ministers feel better.  His job is to aid congregations in ministerial transitions, which involves training of search committees, training of District settlement representatives and helping congregations seeking intentional interim ministers who are trained to help with difficult transitions. 

What strikes me about U.U. Enforcers formulation is the assumption that the old Settlement office was about settling ministers.  One would think that made it some kind of placement agency.  All the offices of the Unitarian Universalist Association work to serve the congregations of the Association, the Association maintains a list of ministers who are qualified to be called Unitarian Universalist ministers.  The Association provides aid and support to these ministers, but the primary mission is service to the congregations.  Ministers seeking support and solidarity should cultivate their relations with their colleagues, and most experienced ministers understand that and do that through the Unitarian Universalist Ministers Association. 

U.U. Enforcer argues there is a glut of ministers, and these out of work ministers motivate the name change.  Is there a glut of ministers?  John Weston has said that he experiences a shortage of ministers.  Congregations testify that it is difficult to find qualified ministers.
Every year there are ministers who fail to find a placement, and congregations that fail to find a minister.  Which is it, glut or shortage?

I would advance the observation.  We have a surplus of "not ready for prime time" ministers.  We have a shortage of experienced and able ministers.  The time between receiving ministerial fellowship and receiving final fellowship is very difficult for many of our  ministers.  But that is a generalization.  When we get concrete we discover more about our reality.

If our congregations report a shortage of experienced and able ministers, and report that they are willing to nurture an inexperienced minister, why are there unemployed ministers?

1) One reason could be that smaller congregations have unrealistic expectations, they want a leader, a person of spiritual depth, some one who theologically articulate, with a wealth of experience, and full of youthful energy.  They are paying for a salary that is not attractive, a salary that puts them in the market for a new minister who is building his/her resume.  They resent that the minister is inexperienced and not committed to stay with them.

2) Another reason could be echoes of oppressive systems that no one wants to talk about openly.  White men get settled quicker than their sisters.  Heterosexuals are less controversial to many search committees,  I know of several search committees that returned every packet of a gay or lesbian minister.  Ministers of color continue to experience subtle forms of discrimination in the search process.  (I have witnessed overt forms of discrimination.)  While experienced and able ministers of color find settlements and opportunities, they know that they must tough it out to find their place as third generation pioneers in this denomination.

3. There are ministers in the search who have narrowly defined their ministry, and finding a match becomes more difficult as a result.  The minister looking for the racially diverse, socially involved coven of pagans might be in the search a long time.  The minister who wants to introduce the congregation to their Six Step Method of Salvation, complete with a liturgy may be searching for a long, long time.  And then there was that minister who only preached about social justice, and the one who insisted on macrobiotic pot lucks.  While we are called to witness prophecy, it is the prophecy of all believers, not just the hang up of the minister that matters.

4. The most common problem I am told is ministers who have geographical limits on where they will serve.  I find myself in that situation on occasion.  My spouse is a minister as well, so if she is serving in a certain place, then I would prefer to be nearby.  There are plenty of congregations that John Weston would love to recommend me to, but I can't travel to them and sustain my idea of a marriage.  I understand that many of our unsettled ministers are located in commuting distance of the Hub of the Universe.  Other gluts occur in Chicago, and Berkeley.  There seems to be goodly supply of ministers in Metro New York.  Other areas of the country the congregations report that they find it difficult to attract a minister to move to location.

5. Finally we need to say an unpleasant truth, there are ministers on the U.U.A. list who should never be ministers.  We have ministers who have had several negotiated resignations, they seem to litter the landscape with broken congregations. We have ministers who fail to sustain a ministry due to substance abuse.  We have ministers who seem to think that ministry is about "expressing their spirituality" and complain about their congregations who are "spiritually oblivious" and other such indications of narcissism.  We have ministers who are clueless about the covenantal nature of Unitarian Universalism and proceed to do their own thing, and then are surprised when the congregation dismisses them for being unprofessional and unethical.

Search committees have a responsibility to the congregation to try to achieve a good settlement,  the office of Transitions has a responsibility to help those congregations in that work.  Ministers are not entitled to settlement in our polity, they are called for service from amongst the community of ministers to a congregation who is looking for a leader, a person of religious depth and a person who capable of empowering them to become the congregation they seek to be.  Ministry is not about ministers.

Who is to help the minister seeking a settlement?  Find a good mentor.  One who will tell the searcher the truth with love.  Ministers were never settled by the U.U.A., and if it takes a name change to help ministers understand that truth, then the name change is a very good thing.

Chalice Chick reports on a discussion by on Beliefnet in which an individual calling himself Bhatkhiman argues:

"There have been articles in the UUA's official magazine over the past several years basically demonizing and castigating humanists. And this attitude was supported by the UUA President who allegedly was a former humanist who "embraced" supernaturalism as a psychological means of dealing with the death of his child.  . . . and later " humanists no longer have to settle for the watered down theism-lite of the UUA and it is about time. Humanism will only flourish once humanists start to cut the ties from the increasingly irrational UUA."

We would be hard pressed to find these articles in the UU World demonizing humanism.  There may more theological diversity expressed in the World than Bhatkhiman would like but there are no attacks on humanism, much less attacks on humanists themselves.  And that is because most Unitarian Universalists are one or another variety of humanist.  The main current in Unitarianism since at least the beginning of the twentieth century has been religious humanism, a way of being religious that originated in the panentheism and nature mysticism of the Transcendentalists in which the message of Christianity was understood to be an articulation of the best of human wisdom rather than a special revelation of a supernatural God.  Humanism is an ancient orientation that human beings can move by their own efforts toward wholeness, and we do it in this life and on this earth.  Humanism is much broader that the narrowly definition given by self described secular humanists who seem to think they are the one and only way of being humanist.

But the Unitarian Universalist understanding of humanism is not narrow, dogmatic and exclusive.  If a self described humanist like Bill Sinkford finds solace in prayer during a personal crisis, most Unitarian Universalist humanists will pray with him. Atheism is one way of being humanist, but it is not the only way, and despite the claims of some atheism is not the majority way of being humanist.

There are many ways of doing theology without the assumption of a supernatural, but with no need for the dogmatism of atheism either.  Genuine humanists appreciate all the great achievements of humankind, and for most humanists among the most significant, deepest, and most revealing creations of humankind are the human religions.  The gods did not create Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, or the indigenous religions of Turtle Island.  People did.  Those people may have been responding to an experience of Mystery, and Transcendence.  They may have been having an experience of their own inner psychic projections onto nature.  Or both.  But from those experiences they learned and taught others the power of covenant, the loving kindness meditation, the prayer of aspiration and forgiveness, and many other spiritual disciplines that enhanced our human ability to respond to difficulties with love and understanding.

If some 'humanists' are afraid  of the religions created by human beings, and want to leave Unitarian Universalism for a small, exclusive circle of people who will never, ever have to listen to a ancient story of a sage or prophet, never ever have to hear some one say "thank you God,"  never ever have to hear someone witness the power of the spirit dwelling in their midst - well that is their loss.  But our kind of generous, spirit loving, wisdom affirming humanism is in no danger of dying out in Unitarian Universalism.

If one is entrusted with leading a service of worship one has entered into an implicit covenant with all those who may join the community in worship on that occasion.  I will state my understanding of that covenant as "Do as much good as possible. Do as little harm as one can."

Now most of us who have led worship for a while have had the experience of deeply offending someone in our audience.  I was preaching in a Unitarian Universalist congregation in Texas.  My audience consisted of many who had a negative experience with the Bible.  It also consisted of many Unitarian Universalists who cherished the Bible of as a source of wisdom.  My pastoral mission for that sermon was to help my listeners to appreciate the Bible more than they did.  In order to do that I assumed (correctly for most of my people gathered) that I would need to issue the disclaimer.  Now if you have going to the Unitarian Universalists for more than a few weeks, you have heard the disclaimer.  My version goes something like "now this Book wasn't written as a Book,  it is collection of writings,  and some of the writings have been edited later, and  the writings were not literally written by God, but by men (and maybe a woman here and there.  Now those men (and maybe that woman) may have had an original experience of the divine but their understanding was shaped by their location in history, and their own personal hang-ups."*  Unitarian Universalist ministers have discovered that a well crafted but inclusive disclaimer anticipates the pain held by their listeners around certain hot button words or ideas.  Those who do not learn to do an proactive disclaimer experience resistance in the form of hostile feedback, and occasional complaints to lay authories.  If they get that kind of trouble, they might stop preaching about hot button words and ideas.  If they do stop preaching about hot buttons with wisdom and courage they are failing to be spiritual leaders (in my not so humble opinion.)

Well wouldn't you know there was a woman with a Bible on her lap in the first row off to the left in the second service that Sunday.  There were four hundred people in the second service and the sermon had gone well in the first service so I was throwing caution to the wind and ripping through the disclaimer when she started walking that long lonely walk up the center aisle that fine Sunday in Texas.  I am enough of a Universalist to believe that while we must save all souls, I won't be the one to do it.  Do as little harm as possible meant that I needed to minister to those who needed to relax their strong feelings against the Bible, and that meant I made someone uncomfortable that had much stronger attachments to her Bible than what was common in that Texas congregation.

I recall how (the Rev.) Kim Crawford Harvie anticipated some folks grief around "the Lord."  At Arlington Street Church, "Precious Lord,  Take My Hand" (SLT #199 see BTW below) was (and still is) one of the congregation's favorites.  Some folks would cry in blessed healing relief every time we sang it.  Still others would critique the patriarchal reference which they witnessed ruined their whole Sunday and having been abused they would share their outrage with lovers of the song at coffee hour.  No wimp, Kim did not stop putting that song on the playlist, she learned to anticipate the grief of those wounded souls by inviting them to use substitute language.  Kim would say: "Now some of you might want to say "Love" rather than "Lord" in this song we are about sing.  Knock your socks off folks."

Now y'all do as little harm as ya'can.

BTW, for you all who are seeking to develop some cultural competency, this song is not a spiritual, it was written by Thomas Dorsey the night he heard that his wife had died in 1932 (he was away from home on tour. It was not anticipated.  He was alone.  This was his prayer.)  It is "Gospel" which is a different genre.

*To appreciate how hung up a person can be and how original that persons experience of the divine can be, and how much history might shape their understanding of that divine encounter, one must read Paul.  Then read him again.  Read him until you get him, despite his hubris and his passionate bias.  My reading has led me to experience a spiritual genius, who was a feminist out of his time, leading a patriarchal, sexually abusive, factionalized church.  The lesson of Paul is if you don't want liberals to misread you two millenia from now, do not write about practical questions, only write about principles and purposes and other fine abstractions.

For those who are just tuning in.

Addressing himself to Philocrites, Jaume de Marcos writes: "talking generally and not about your individual case (which is surely not unique), if people have two religions, one that is the "authentic" one, the one that appeals to their innermost spiritual feelings, and then UUism as the liberal church that they attend because of some commitment to liberal values or because they like to visit an interfaith place for interesting conversation, or to hear intelligent sermons, then this is a death knell for one of those two places, and I think I know which one is the loser. I wish that this religion rediscovers in time what it is truly about."

Jaume has argued variations on this point before and in different ways.  As I understand his position, Unitarian Universalism is a new religion, distinct from its historical antecedents, and its adherents commitment to Unitarian Universalism should be exclusive.  As I understand his argument when one becomes a Unitarian Universalist one "forsakes all others, clinging only" to this new religion.  In the past he has critiqued "hyphenated UUs" and raised critiques of religiously plural congregations.

His idea of Unitarian Universalism is compelling for its simplicity,  and he is not unique in holding that Unitarian Universalism as a singular religion (as contrasted to a pluralistic faith community.)  But Juame's position is not based on the very real and spiritually  rich Unitarian Universalist faith community that exists in the United States in 2006.    Suffice to say we are diverse, and we have learned to embrace even greater diversity by becoming a pluralist faith community.  That we are a pluralistic is a fact,  we may never become a singular religion again.  Scolding us for what we have become based on an ideal is "ideological."  (I will write about our social history and its challenges at another time.)

In this post I wish to take up what I take to be the most offensive challenge of Jaume's argument.  Is it true that a good Unitarian Universalist must have one, and only one religious identity and that identity should be pretty much the same for every Unitarian Universalist?  He argues that if we have a "more authentic" religious or spirituality separate from generic Unitarian Universalism, we will find ourselves leaving this faith community.  Thus he is challenging the idea that we can be loyal to this pluralistic faith community and engaged in deep spiritual work that is unique to us alone, (or which we share with some identity group within Unitarian Universalism or outside Unitarian Universalism.)  Do we divide Unitarian Universalism by deepening our personal, spiritual, ethical and/or cultural identities beyond generic Unitarian Universalism?    I disagree with Jaume, it is my contention that the genius of Unitarian Universalism is that it encourages us in a spiritual journey that may be separate, but not apart from Unitarian Universalism.

Who am I to have an opinion?  What is my experience with living this question, resolving it in practice?  I became a young adult and joined a Unitarian Universalist congregation during the year of the merger, and before that I was either a participant in Liberal Religious Youth or child in a Unitarian Sunday School and home. (My wife thinks that it is  important to add that I born to Unitarian parents,  I was nurtured in the faith before I went to Sunday school.)  I am a minister in fellowship with the Unitarian Universalist Association.  I have been elected to positions of trust in our Association many times over the last four decades.  Unitarian Universalism is part of my identity.  My commitment to this faith community is solid, I am no seeker floating in to check the Unitarian Universalists out and see if it will meet my needs.  I learned long ago that that is not likely to happen.  I stay because I am committed to helping Unitarian Universalism become what it proclaims itself to be.

In Unitarian Sunday School and Liberal Religious Youth we were encouraged to develop our own spirituality.  I have tried again and again.  We are never finished spirituality.  Presently,  I read sacred literature, the Bible and but not only the Bible.  I reflect on what I read.  Then I pray.  Then I journal.  And then I serve.  I reflect on my praying, journaling and service and learn from my reflections.

I was taught to work on my unique spirituality before there was a Unitarian Universalism, this idea was and is and will be a foundation stone of this faith community.  Our faith community teaches us that each of us are unique and have unique gifts, we are called to develop our own spirituality, the faith community will support us on this journey and hear our learnings and celebrate our uniqueness. (I repeat, I was taught this in 1957.  If Jaume doesn't like this idea of  developing a unique spirituality, he should talk to the religious educators and clergy of two and three generations past.  He should talk to Emerson.  It is too late to argue that we shouldn't be who we are.  It is who we are.

I was influenced as a child by older relatives who were traditional Cherokee and kept the traditions alive.  My parents experienced the racism in the larger society and the racism within this faith community and saw the solution in integration and being modern, they did not encourage me to identify with the Cherokee ways.  After trying integration, I learned to appreciate the Cherokee way in mid-life.  I developed a way of looking at the world through the eyes of my extended family.  I studied with relatives who had embraced the traditional ways.  That has become part of my spiritual identity as well.

My parents were Unitarian Christians.  I cherish what they taught me.  I am a disciple of Jesus, who for me was a non Western, impoverished day laborer who witnessed peace and justice.  Being a disciple means to resurrect Jesus in my practice.  I have had a long standing, if at times stressed relationship with the Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship.  Being critical of the European ways of being Christian, and a lover of Jesus is part of my identity.  This is an aspect of my spiritual identity that is separate, but not apart from Unitarian Universalism.

As a teenager in Liberal Religious Youth, I decided that I would not be a victim of the racism I encountered among the Unitarians, and I became engaged in the work of transformation.  I am committed to an Unitarian Universalism that is on a journey toward wholeness to overcome its brokenness relative to racism, cultural oppression, sexism, heterosexism, classism, ablism,    Too often the work of transformation has been deformed by ideology, an unloving rejection of the contradictory humans who make up our faith community in favor of an ideal of what we ought to be.  I have joined with others in seeking transformation with a commitment to reconciliation.  During those years I have witnessed that women, gays, lesbians, the differently abled, Unitarian Universalists of African descent, Latino-Latina-Hispanics, Asian and Pacific Island descent Unitarian Universalists who have experienced themselves as empowered and become deeper Unitarian Universalists through the experience of forming identity groups.  For me, the work of transformation is soul work, it is part of my spirituality.  This work has not been fed by generic Unitarian Universalism.  But the spiritual perspective that we have gained over the decades from this work has enriched Unitarian Universalism.  Transformation work is a spirituality, a source of our living tradition, and those who practice it develop a spiritual identity that is separate but not apart from Unitarian Universalism.

As I began to develop a spiritual practice based on the wisdom of the Cherokee people, I sought to articulate and practice an ethic of right relationship with animals (my non human relations.)  Ten years ago I joined the Unitarian Universalists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.  I was on the board as Vice President, but in  a couple of years it became clear that that organization had one vision of what the ethical treatment of animals must be, and thinking differently than the anti hunter, anti fisher vegan party line made me an outsider.  I support UUFETA positions on factory farming, and oppose their positions on indigenous fishing rights.  This too is a distinct part of my spiritual identity.  It is separate, but not apart from Unitarian Universalism.

My spirituality has been formed by being in critical but loving relation with Unitarian Universalists and forming connections with people who were oppressed and marginalized by the Unitarian Universalist mainstream.  I celebrate the freedom and responsibility to attend to my own spiritual life and support others in their journeys.  I have never been nourished by generic Unitarian Universalism.  I am a practicing, devoted Unitarian Universalist, "hyphenated" and separated yet part of the whole.

I read Jaume's pronouncement above with dismay. With all due respect for the Jaume's good intentions, I experience the statement to reflect a judgment that has little to do with how many of us live out our faith as Unitarian Universalists.  I think we long ago found what this faith community is about, which is is becoming a pluralistic community in which many separate but not apart ways of being Unitarian Universalist could contribute to strengthening and renewing and deepening our common life together.

Collect all the probing, revealing, and insightful remarks and reflections that have been made about God, the Lord, the language of reverence on UU blogs in the last days and ponder it.  There is a thesis to be written.

Also share your links with the UU universe,  it would be a resource.  This part should be done ASAP

(As suggested by a crafty old minister who has learned to delegate by invitation.

a.k.a. Clyde Grubbs

I have enjoyed reading the many contributions to the conversation about religious language over the last week or so.  I will not argue against anybody's position,  simply add some thoughts.  As my readers might discern,  I don't always worry whether religious words are descriptive of empirical observed objects but rather I have come to use religious words to express my deepest relationship to being itself.

I have served eight churches as either a settled minister, an interim minister or a intern.  In six of those churches most of my audience would have been delighted if I used the word God more often than I did.  In two the congregation would have been delighted if I used the word God less.  In neither case did their desire influence how frequently I used the term.  I find the term useful, but I use it sparingly out of respect for the limits of language.

My left brain informs me that I am a panentheist, rather than a theist.  God is the word for the Holy in the universe, the Mystery at the heart of being,  the Transcendent Wonder that transforms us and renews us.  I have found that saying what I think the word means helps those who are hardwired to react to the word and assume it means that God exists separate and apart from that which is enduring, transcendent and creative and is incarnate in the cosmos.

I can talk to theists about a God that hears their prayers and answers them in detail.  That is not my understanding of the divine agenda, but my emphatic entrance into my interlocutors assumption makes for a meaningful conversation.

For me, God (the Holy, the Mystery, the Wonder) is both intimate and awesome, so I can understand both the Daddy image and the Lord Eternal Majestic image.  I prefer my relational metaphors to be informal and "I-thou"  but  a good Lord God Almighty works when a Hurricane is approaching.

I assume the New Testament authors were using the common honorific for a Rabbi when they called him Master.  That word has been translated as Lord.  So I understand it when someone says that Jesus is Lord and Savior.  I translate that to mean Respected Teacher and Healer, both because that is my reading of the Greek and because it describes my personal relationship to Jesus.  While "the Lord" is not my preferred relational metaphor,  I can't imagine changing "Precious Lord, Take My Hand" to Dear Creative Process Sustain Me.  (If the next hymnal commission takes this up as a "suggestion" I will sue.  The audience still snickers on Christmas Eve when we sing 245 with its "the Word has come.")

For me, there is a difference between the language I use in worship, in prayer, in devotional reflection and the language that I use in theological reflection.  Theological reflection comes out of the dialog between my faithful relationship to a Justice Making, Peace Proclaiming Transcendent Wonder and how my brain tells me the universe works.  Theological reflection seeks to articulate the commitments of my faith community relative to ultimate questions.  But for me, the language of devotion, the vocabulary of reverence is intended to enhance my personal mind, body, emotional, spiritual relationship with that in which I live, and move, and have my being. When I am leading worship, my choice of reverence language is intended to enhance that relational experience for the people with whom I am worshipping.  For me the word God breaks through my defenses and enhances worship.  God comes to my lips in prayer.  In theological reflection,  I need to explain what God means,  and what it does not mean.  I don't need to do that in prayer.  That which knows my thoughts before I think them already knows what I think.

I can sing,  Over My Head ..... I hear Angels in the air.... because that is the language of reverence.....

about Angels, do they exist, how much do they weigh,  what is their job description,  I am agnostic.

But I can sing about Angels,  I will chant to the Goddess,  I even bellow out about how I look forward to "resting in the arms of my Savior."  It is the poetry of worship.

Relax, join the chorus,  you can explain yourself to the discussion group later.