Unitarian Universalists: July 2006 Archives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is what John Dean says about the new conservatives:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saint Peter let him in without any further questions,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

I wanted to be a Unitarian Universalist minister when I was in high school.  I studied philosophy and humanities in college, and then I went of Crane Theological School at Tufts University.  I arrived in Medford, Massachusetts having experienced Liberal Religious Youth and San Francisco State and the emerging peace and civil rights movements.  The United States was escalating the war against the Vietnamese and I became more and more involved in creating a peace movement, and I made the decision to take a leave from my theological education so I could help end the war.  Looking back now I realize that had taken the ideals of my Unitarian sunday school  and home very seriously, and I was full of illusions about the United States.  I didn't return to theological school for several decades.  During the prolonged interim I was anti war organizer, a labor organizer, a college teacher, a community organizer, a political campaigner, and an organizer of a community school to teach activists some wisdom and some skills.

I taught history and my academic interests centered around social history, which means to do historical research by doing social analysis to understand the past.  Most political and intellectual historians have documents, and while social historians have documents the documents are things like census reports, ship manifests, classified ads in the newspaper,  bills of sales for slaves, or deeds to land.  Social historians might look at folk art, and popular music, and others might read the diaries of ordinary people.  The point of view of the social historian is do history from the bottom up rather than from the top down.  A social historian will get excited about research  revealing how poor Whites in Western New York responded to the Declaration of Independence, and less about another biography of Thomas Jefferson.  During the 1970s social historians were finding ways to reconstruct histories of the family life of slave families, so we began to see books on Thomas Jefferson's other family.

The impact of the work of social historians working with political and intellectual historians is now reflected in our understanding of the American Revolution. The British had gone into debt fighting the French in the Seven Years War (1754 to 1763), and one of the lessons the British government learned from that conflict was that must maintain peace with the American native peoples or war would go on and on.  That was not the kind of war the British wanted to fight, and they saw no advantage in conquering the wilderness west of the Appalachians.  So they made a law forbidding settlement beyond the continental divide and they made treaties with the native people promising peace to all peoples west of the Eastern Mountains.

The American colonists were upset with a number of restrictions on their economic life imposed by the Empire, not the least of which was the restriction on land speculation west of the continental divide.  How could young hustlers like George Washington make their fortune if they couldn't survey land out in some valley in Western Virginia and sell it to land hungry immigrants?  Who cared if there were agreements with the native people, their fathers had broken agreements with the natives east of the Mountains.  That is how the land was cleared, you make an agreement to keep "those savages" at bay, and then build up your forces and kill them at the first opportunity.  The colonial gentry reasoned they didn't need the British Army to fight the Indians, they could arm the settlers, and let them form militias. (I ask you to think about the Second Amendment to the Constitution and its meaning in 1789.)  There was a fortune to be made in selling off the West.  If you made the laws it would be legal.  Jefferson even invented a way to survey land that no surveyor had ever seen (ever wonder about the West's arbitrary grid system that assigns house numbers to mountain tops and ravines without regard to topography.)

There were other restrictions imposed on the colonies, and other enterprising men who found these restrictions a violation of their liberty.  We should not forget that there  were iron makers who wanted to build huge forges,  silver smiths who could be making plate for ships,* and would be bankers who wanted to found banks.*  There were the Yankee slave smugglers who longed to trade in human beings legally (at the time the British had a monopoly on this trade.)  The coalition that gathered in Philadelphia in 1776 included idealists, ideologues, hustlers and entrepreneurs.  The document they approved with all its rhetoric about human rights has inspired revolutions against colonization and movements for self determination of peoples as well as a continuing struggle for human rights around the world

I commemorate Independence Day, commemorate for me is a better word that celebrate given my understanding what the birth of the United States meant for human kind.  I reflect on its lessons and its meaning.  I dedicate myself to telling the truth about power and to helping to realize the ideals that articulated for by common people everywhere, even if the were not seriously intended by the author of that document.

*Paul Revere was the founder of American Biltrite, freed from mercantile restrictions he became a manufacturer of metal plate.  He got his reward in the form of a contract to put the plate on "Old Ironsides" the U.S.S. Constitution.  He did a good job.  Thomas Paine was one of the founders of the First National Bank of Boston, one of the banks that consolidated to form the Fleet Financial Group.  With his profits from getting that charter, he was able to go to France to help make another Revolution.

On June 30, I posted details about Thomas Jefferson who authored the long standing U.S.policy toward Native people known as "Move or Die."  I included this quote: "If we are to wage a campaign against these Indians the end proposed should be their extermination, or their removal beyond the lakes of the Illinois River. The same world would scarcely do for them and us."

I was asked which Indians was Jefferson referring to when he made that quote.

My instinct is to say "all Indians" and leave it like that,  the Europeans ravished this continent by dividing and conquering.  But the truth is it was all Indians that were left, some had already been exterminated. 

The Shawnee were the major nation resisting Virginia's murderous invasion in 1780 just as the Cherokee were resisting North Carolina's and Georgia's invaders.  But it would have been "first they came for the Shawnee, and then they came for the rest."  By 1780 Virginia had already wiped out several nations.  Jefferson was a national leader,  the author of the Declaration of Independence, the former ambassador to France, when he spoke as Governor of Virginia he was not referring to a local  state problem.  The Illinois River was a long way from Williamsburg.

I have been able to compile a short list of known victims of this policy which was continued until the indigenous people were no longer in possession of any ancestral land, continued even after Wounded Knee, continued even after the people had been humiliated and reduced to dependency.  Jefferson's policy affected these Indians.

Abenakis,  Accochannock,  Alabama Coushatta,  Abanki, Alaska Natives, Apache,*  Arapaho,  Arikara,  Assiniboine Sioux,  Blackfeet,* Caddo,  Carrier, Catawba, Cayuga ,  Cheyenne,  Chickasaw,  Chicora,  Chilcotin, Chippewa,  Chippewa Cree,  Chitimacha,
Chocataw,  Cherokee*,  Chumash,  Coharie, Comanche,* Costanoan,  Cowlitz, Cree,  Creek,  Crow, Dakota, Delaware,  Dene,  Edisto, Essellen, Goshute , Gros Ventree, Gwitch'In , Haida, Haliwa-Sponi, Hidatsa, Ho Chunk , Hohokam, Hopi,Houma, Hupa, Huron,  Illinois, Innu, Inuit, Inupiaq, Iowa, Iroquois, Kalispel, Kaw, Kiowa,  Klallam, Klamath, Kootenai, Lakota, Lumbee, Maidu, Makah, Mandan, Mattaponi, Meherrin, Menominee, Metis, Miami, Mingo, Miwok, Mohawk, Mohegan, Monacan, Montaucketts, Munsee Delaware, Nansemond, Navaho *, Nez Perce, Nisga'a, Nootka,  Ohlone, Ojibwe, Omaha, Oneida, Onondaga, Osage, Ottawa,  Paiute, Pamunkey,  Pawnee, Peoria, Pequot, Pima,  Potawatomi, Powhatan, Pueblo, Quapaw,  Quinault,  Ramapough, Sac and Fox , Salish, Saponi, Secwepemc, Seminole,
Seneca,  Shawnee, Shinnecock, Shoshone, Shuswap, Siletz, Sioux, Spokane, Steilacoom, Suquamish, Susquehanna  Tlingit, Tonkawa, Tsilhqot'In, Tuscarora,  Umatilla,  Umpqua,  Ute,* Wabanaki, Waccamaw-Sioun, Wampanoag, Warm Springs Indians, Washoe, Wea,
Wendat, Wichita, Wiyot, Wyandot.

I am sure there are some I couldn't find.  Some of the peoples on the above list have been reduced to populations smaller than one of our average sized congregations, they were hundreds of thousands in 1491.

Was the removal policy an alternative to Genocide?  In other words if the Indians choose to move, rather than die, isn't it true that there was only the threat of genocide, not the reality of genocide?

If individuals are moved from a land where they ancestors lived, if their children are forcefully removed and sent to English Christian schools, if the land they are resettled on is incapable of sustaining them agriculturally and they are put on the dole they have been destroyed as a people.  When armed men keep them in their "reserve," they are in concentration camps.    Genocide is when a people's culture and way of life has been destroyed.  The native people were destroyed as an indigenous people and turned into the underclass known as Indians.  The survivors are victims of genocide just as much as those who ended up in a mass grave.

Ask the Armenians.  Ask the Jews.  One doesn't have to get every last individual for a genocide to have taken place.  Genocide is the destruction of a particular community of people, survivors of transported Indians were able to recreate some community, but Oklahoma isn't the Great Smocky Mountains.

Native people are resurgent,  more and more individuals are learning their language and working with others to overcome shame and become autonomous and self determining.  But native people live with the awareness of holocaust.  To heal this nation the children of the conquerors must share that awareness.

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.