Unitarian Universalists: December 2005 Archives

FUERZA is a diversified group of artists led by community artist and activist Mario Torero. Based in San Diego, CA, Grupo FUERZA grew out of the Chicano Park Art Movement of the 70's, influencing the cultural landscape of the San Diego region.

After 33 years of struggle, and considering the 500 years of Latin/Indian evolution, FUERZA is moving forward with the concept of re-joining the Aztec/Mayan Cultures of the North with the Inca Culture of South America, through the Concept of Aztlan. Aztlan is an Aztec/Mayan spiritual belief that the representation of our creator, Quetzalcoatl, would return to earth around this time as he has done every 500 years.

The legend conceives that the liberating spirit of Quetzalcoatl would arrive in the Promised Land of Aztlan, presently, the Southwestern United States. From there he would spread throughout the original anscestral lands, reuniting all indigeneous peoples of the Americas.

FUERZA's contribution to this reunification is to rejoin the indigenous peoples through an arts and cultural exchange.

The discussion about theology that began over at Philocrites  has stimulated much thought in the weblogs of Unitarian Universalists. For a week I observed rather than jumping in, although the question of the "theological core" of religious liberalism is central to much of my writing here at People So Bold.

I thought I would write several small essays on this thread rather than one long one.  There are two basic reasons for choosing this strategy:  first, I have observed many disparate themes in the thread, and second, if I concentrate on one isolated aspect of what has become an expanding critique of our intellectual culture, I might contribute to finding a solution.

I have done my share of child dedications, both as part of the Sunday service and as private ceremonies. Some have been in UU Christian congregations, some have been in pluralistic congregations. I have baptized an adult Unitarian Universalist who had become a Christian.
But this was a first for me, the baptism of a child. It was last night, Christmas eve, after the candlelight service. I celebrated this baptism at the request of Unitarian Universalist Christian parents, one who had been brought up Unitarian Universalist, and the other who had been brought up Roman Catholic and whose understanding of baptism was influenced by that Catholicism. Their daughter was two months old.
So what follows is Christian baptism as understood by this Unitarian Universalist of Christian humanist leanings.

Edmund Hamilton Sears, Unitarian minister and anti war activist helped define the meaning of the Christmas holiday with his carol "It came upon a Midnight Clear." The last verse has shaped generations of religious liberals understanding: "for lo! the days are hastening on by prophets long foretold, when the ever circling years comes round the age of gold: when peace shall over all the earth its ancient spendors fling, and the whole world give back the song which now the angels sing."

Sears wrote his carol as an anti war song. The United States had invaded Mexico as part of a premeditated plan to seize resources and extend the system of slavery. The United States had been engaged in a war of genocide against the indigenous peoples of this land, and its racist contempt for the people of Mexico was a logical extension of the exclusive covenant upon which the nation had been founded. Sears wrote his carol to protest the violence and imperial arrogance of his government. Sears was a Unitarian, and a real patriot.

This carol was his Christmas gift to his faith community and to other real patriots of his time. (Abraham Lincoln resigned from the Illinois legislature to protest the vote to call up the militia for the invasion of Mexico. Henry David Thoreau went to jail rather than pay his taxes to support this war. Sears had lost his pulpit due to the vicious criticism from jingoists within the Lancaster, Massachusetts congregation, but had been welcomed by the Wayland, Massachusetts congregation

My anti war commitment began in Unitarian Sunday School, and I have no problem asserting that while Unitarian Universalism may not be a pacifist church, we are a faith community that has a long, and consistent tradition of opposition to unjust war. Our present stance of opposition to the racist and murderous war on the Iraqi people is not because we have strayed from religion into politics as some who don't know our history would assert, on the contrary we are continuing a long tradition.

How do we discern a just war, from an unjust war? First, we need to understand that the political elite who runs our government has a long history of lying, rationalizing, and spinning their policies. What do I mean by long? I would go back to well before Independence was declared. My Cherokee ancestors had experience with the lies.

But what about now? How do we put an end to the "two thousand years of wrong" [Sears was referencing the betrayal of Jesus teaching by his followers.]

Let me suggest one resource that exposes the lies and spin of the modern war making elite. War Made Easy by Normon Solomon analyzes the deceptions of the government and media to mobilize the people of this nation into war after war.

This year perhaps as many as two billion people will celebrate at Christmas.  Not only in affluent North America and Western Europe, where we may think we own the holiday and have our special notions of how it should be celebrated.  It also will be celebrated in Asia, in Africa, in Latin America and among the poor Europe and North America.  In poor villages, in refugee camps, in soup kitchens, in homeless shelters, in prisons, in city slums, in the homes of financially strapped single parents in affluent suburbs people will hear the story,  sing the story,  and rejoice

Yesterday I wrote about congregational polity in response to a comment by Steve Caldwell. He wondered whether the UUA's web site lacked a good interface for seekers because of congregational polity. He alluded to what he called "congregational polity purists" who seemed to be saying that any approach to seekers that did not come through a congregation was inappropriate.

Peacebang commented on that entry "Clyde, I'd love it if you'd tackle Steve's remarks even more directly. He isn't talking about congregations gathering, he's talking about complaints against UU folks who don't attend (or don't much attend) the local congregation but who consider themselves UU from their involvement with camps, conferences, etc."

So who is a Unitarian Universalist? In our polity the Unitarian Universalist Association consists of member congregations. While there are Associated and Affiliated organizations, the only members of the UUA are the member congregations. In addition to the member congregations there are about a number of gatherings of Unitarian Universalists that are covenanted, have regular programs and provide a means for participation of their members, but because they are too new, or too small are not officially recognized as member congregations.

Each of the congregations defines its own membership, and while there are no written standards for congregations to follow, the membership requirements are similar from congregation to congregation.

So from a polity point of view, the Association consists of recognized congregations, and the membership in the congregations consists of recognized members. So, does that mean that the only people who are Unitarian Universalists are those recognized members of recognized congregations? What about children? Should the minister instruct her youngest congregants that while they are beloved by the community they are not Unitarian Universalists? What about the staff who can not join the congregation because that congregation has a rule that staff can not be members? What about youth and young adults who grew up Unitarian Universalist and have not yet become a recognized member of a recognized congregation?

I suspect we are confusing two different things. On the one hand we have polity; our association consists of congregations and our congregations consists of members. And on the other hand we have the elusive question of identity within a religious community. There are members of the congregation that I serve who do not identify as Unitarian Universalists, but they do identify and participate in our local congregation. And there are folks who for one reason or another have come to think of themselves as Unitarian Universalists, but do not identify with a local congregation.

Thinking back on my youth and young adult years, I joined my first member congregation of the Unitarian Universalist Association when I was twenty five. I had identified as Unitarian and then a Unitarian Universalist since I was 12 or 13. I had participated in my parents home congregation, and was considered one of the flock, I had been a regular attendee at five other congregations before finding one I wanted to join. I had gone to Liberal Religious Youth conferences. I had been an officer in the Student Religious Liberals. I was in theological school!!!! I had a strong self identity as a Unitarian Universalist and apparently the Unitarian Universalist community thought of me as a Unitarian Universalist because they asked me to preach, teach, and serve on committees. But I was not a recognized member of a recognized congregation until I joined that congregation.

Not too many years later, I like many other young adults considered the actions of the UUA administration against the Black empowerment movement to be racist and a betrayal of Unitarian Universalism. Being young and strong in my convictions, I ceased to identify myself with Unitarian Universalism for several years. I continued to be a recognized member of a recognized congregation, albeit a congregation that agreed with my anger against the UUA.

Identity is a complicated and intense religious commitment. Polity is the theological rational of how we associate with one another to govern our community. They are not two different things. They are not the same thing either.

Is someone who identifies with Unitarian Universalism through his or her participation in a camp a Unitarian Universalist? That is for them to define. Are they participating in our polity? No.

Dogma is a word Unitarian Universalists don't use often. But the word dogma means the authorative teaching of a religious community. Our by-laws of the Unitarian Universalist Association enshrine congregational policy as the guiding principle of the Association. No other theological idea is mentioned, outside of the By-laws statement of the "Principles and Purposes." The Unitarian Universalist Ministers Association asks ministers to uphold congregational polity as part of the Code of Conduct along with taking care of oneself and being honest with congregants. Unitarian Universalists are known for their theological diversity, and their non dogmatic attitudes but one would be hard pressed to find a Unitarian Universalist leader who would express doubts about congregational polity. Congregational polity is our dogma.

On the other hand a dogmatist is person who is fanatic or inflexible in how they apply dogmas. I wonder if that is what Steve Caldwell was witnessing when he commented: Maybe the abundance of congregational leadership resources and the paucity of seeker resources on the main uua.org page simply reflects our congregational polity? I've heard some congregational purists suggest that the only appropriate outlet for Unitarian Universalism is the local congregation.

In the eyes of these congregational purists, any expression of Unitarian Universalism directed towards individuals that doesn't come from a UU congregation is inappropriate within our tradition. For example, I've heard some ministers in my region complain about "camp and conference Unitarian Universalists" who have some spiritual needs met outside congregations and district YRUU youth who also have some spiritual needs met outside congregations as forms of Unitarian Universalism as two examples that are incompatible with our traditions. Perhaps this relative lack of "seeker" resources directed towards individuals (and not congregational leaders) on the uua.org main page reflects that view of our polity?

First of all congregational polity means that each "congregation" is a self governing religious gathering and does not require an external theological authority to authorize its religious functions. Second, each congregation will determine its own membership and its own leadership, including calling and authorizing ordained ministry. Third, congregational polity means that each religious community is a covenant relationship with other religious communities working for mutual support and accountability. The theology of congregational polity is that the church is a body of covenanting believers, in contrast to top down polities which congregationalist assert infantalize the believer, and corrupt the community of the faith.

Nothing in our polity prevents a community of congregational churches from associating for any purpose. Congregationalists have long formed mission societies for outreach to people outside the local area of congregations. They established colleges, created publishing companies, and institutionalized charities all without bishops or presbyterian oversight. So creating an Association and authorizing it to advertise to seekers is not outside congregational polity. Congregational polity may be our dogma. But let us apply it with wisdom and a vision that moves beyond dogmatism.

I was pondering the structure of the UUA in yesterdays post.  I was prompted to think about this by something Philocrites wrote about in the comments section of his post of November 29.  He writes of "young people who discover Unitarian Universalism through Beliefnet's "Belief-o-Matic," but then don't find materials -- by which I mean Web sites -- directed to them as curious young adults.  He refers to Joseph Santos-Lyons who compares the seeker resources of the UUA web site and the web site of the Episcopal Church. 

The UUA web site is an example of centralization and vertical integration,  there is main site and there are departments and links to congregations and affiliate organizations.  With the Episcopal site, the seeker information is a separate site easily found from the main page.  It is not clear from the UUA site whether the site is intended to give information to the general public about what the UUA executive leadership is doing,  or is supposed to give information to Unitarian Universalists about services provided by the association (rules for credentialing as a Religious Educator for example) or help seekers find a spiritual home.  Perhaps these functions could be done by separate web sites.  Given the present staff organization of the UUA the web site reflects how the staff thinks about their public. 

If different working groups built different web sites for the different functions merged in the present web site,  we might have a very good seeker web sites, user friendly UU community resource web site, and a super conduit for public witness press release web site.  None of these functions are done well on the present web site.

In the world of the web,  multiple outlets of information each with with a focused mission would produce highly quality results than the present hierarchal approach.

Early in the last century, the model of efficiency was the the corporation with a central headquarters and subordinate operating departments.  The corporation had a Board of Governance and a chief executive officer who oversaw the subordinate operations.  The model was recommended because of "integration" of diverse operations and economies of scale.

It is not surprising that the American Unitarian Association adopted a corporate model, and that the merged Unitarian Univeralist Association presented itself as a hierarchal, departmentalized corporate culture.  Congregational polity presumably was not affected, because the UUA provided services to autonomous congregations who function as the "owners" of the U.U.A.  Some have argued that this model undermines congregational governance by conditioning the congregational leaders to see their association as an instrument to deliver services rather than involving them in associational governance.  The argument asserts that this turns lay leaders into passive recipients of expertise, that they would be more responsible for the Association and its mission if they were involved in making the decisions that will shape the movement.

Whether or not this is the case,  I think that it is time to question whether the vertically integrated corporation continues to be an effective form of organization.  In an age of the internet can we produce educational materials, credential ministers, publish books and magazines, provide training in skills, advocate for justice and peace through a network of working groups rather than a hierarchy of departments?

The Association of Congregations would continue, and we could devolve some of department structures into a network of project oriented working groups.  The most innovative corporations have embarked on this journey toward less centralized learning organizations, while those corporations that have chosen to continue hierarchy and centralization are having difficulties.  Can we utilize the emerging technologies with old forms of organization?