Dear readers — both of this blog, and readers generally — how many of you read long-format documents with a portable text readers in the ePub format? (The Amazon Kindle’s proprietary format does not count here.)
By reader I mean “conventional” tablet-sized readers, phones or laptops? Or even desktop computers.
And what do you read with it?
The Unitarian Fellowship movement was the most successful liberal church growth program in living memory. It was not perfect, but given how different these fellowships were from what came before, it’s amazing it worked — or was allowed to work — at all.
The Unitarian Fellowships get a bad rap today, which I think odd as there’s no institutional plan for any new church starts. Little wonder what does get developed often looks like these fellowships. Cue the naysayers. “So many failed” — which is even more true of restaurants, but people still establish them. I figure that without a risk of failure, there can not be an opportunity for growth. But I do have misgivings: mainly that the Unitarian Fellowship movement came at a time of great optimism, an unparalleled birth rate and social pressure to attend churches. Those days are over, and I’m not complaining.
But one objection keeps coming up, and few confront it: that the fellowships were anti-clerical. Some were (and are) and some were not. But so what if they were?
A church can uphold its mission without making a false mortgage to unsuited forms. If a congregation said, “we feel be can live our our mission best by renting space, limiting our activity and not calling a minister” then they deserve support for clear thinking and resolute decision-making. Or perhaps this church would say, “we prefer to develop our own leaders — for governance and spiritual care alike.”
More power, I think. If there’s a problem, it is too often a lack of direction and that can be found in congregations both with and without a minister. Churches are not employment agencies for ministers, and if a congregation can find its way without one, it should be supported — or at least respected — on these terms without smirking or derision.
While it is pretty clear where I stand on some matters related to Unitarian Universalist Association staffing, it’s not to say I’d be happy to leave things as they were had there been no financial crisis.
In a word, I think we suffer from over-consolidation. Apart from the theological schools and camps, it’s hard to find Unitarian Universalist programs that aren’t hard-wired into 25 Beacon Street. I suppose the Unitarian Universalist Ministerial Assocation might count, but I’ve never seen where there was a case when the organized ministerial college might openly fight the UUA leadership for its members’ benefit. (That’s one reason I resigned ages ago; that, and their programs offered me nothing.) Given that there is no other real Unitarian or Universalist denomination in the United States, and that we’re something of a single species in its own genus, there’s also no much opportunity to get resources from “next door”.
So I’ll say it again: much of the value imputed to the Unitarian Universalist Association is its mere existence, rather than the services it offers. And I’m not a fan of monopolies, especially psychological ones.
Despite the doleful demise of the UUA Washington Office, I agree with others in my last post that the bigger problem is the cessation of new church starts. Though, seeing how few new congregations have joined the UUA (and how many “emerging” congregations never get born) in recent years, I wonder if it’s really that much of a change of policy. And that’s as good as denying our future. No earthly thing last forever and some churches must be born just to replace those that die, and new churches must be born to gather people who live in growing areas.
So even if $5 million or $10 million showed up on Beacon Hill tomorrow, I’m not sure it would stir up an action to really build on our future.
And if I had $5 or $10 million to revive Unitarian Universalism’s flagging fortunes, I’d certainly push it into a new organization — a church-birthing institute, say — with its own leadership with a modern ethos and leaner operation. That, or see a change of course from the Morales administration and UUA Board of Trustees.
Saw this, “oh crap” was the best I could think.
UUA eliminates Washington advocacy office
The Unitarian Universalist Association announced the layoffs of 15 employees February 26 as the first phase of a reorganization of the UUA’s staff.
The UUA’s Washington Office for Advocacy will be eliminated at the end of the fiscal year in June. Four of the UUA’s departments will be consolidated into two: The Advocacy and Witness staff group and the Identity-Based Ministries staff group will merge, as will the Ministry and Professional Leadership staff group and the Lifespan Faith Development staff group.
(UUWorld.org link, Jane Greer, March 5, 2010)
No Monday quarterbacking, but there are a couple of red-flags I might mention later. And couple of questions for which I want answers.
. . . are the same-sex couples in Maryland. I know: as a D.C. resident, I should be happiest the place I call home, but . . .
Last week, the Maryland Attorney General announced that, barring court action, the same-sex marriages contracted in other jurisdictions would be recognized in Maryland. This is good news (1) because the District of Columbia borders Maryland and (2) D.C. went the recognition route before proceeding with a marriage equality bill. (Admittedly, D.C. action was legislative, and D.C. had to test the waters because the Congress could swoop in and snap away a locally decided issue, but there are parallels worth noting.)
If you have a D.C. domestic partnership, marriage will give you no more rights or privileges within the District, apart from the dignity of marriage. (Which is no small thing, and it would be more if the the so-called Defense of Marriage Act didn’t exist.) D.C. Council has already filled in all the distinctions between domestic partnership and marriage through statute. Marriage becomes more valuable if you leave the District and enter a jurisdiction (Massachusetts, Vermont, Canada, South Africa, Nepal, presumably, as examples) where same-sex partners may marry or be recognized. (Makes for a handy vacation destination list, too.)
So enter the Marylanders, like my friend Terrance Heath and his soon-to-legally-wed-husband Rick Imirowicz, mentioned in today’s New York Times. (In my last pastorate, I dedicated their elder son. Golly, they grow.) This is their easiest shot at legal parity. Well, if you ignore DOMA. Which I don’t.
Don’t worry, Hubby and I will get our license in time. I’ll save you a cupcake.
To remind my readers: I am an ordained minister with fifteen years’ experience in performing weddings. I have credentials to preform weddings in the District of Columbia.
And, yes: I will talk to same-sex couples looking to marry. (Indeed, I am half of a same-sex couple.)
As you might know, the District of Columbia will start accepting applications for marriage licenses for same-sex couples tomorrow. Quite a happy day. (What many do not know is that you must state your officiant at the time you apply for the license.)
Email me if you would like to discuss options. I hold inquiries in confidence.
I’m glad to see Speaking Truth to Power — a site addressing clergy sexual misconduct (CSM) resume. In its own words, “its specific focus is Unitarian Universalist processes for dealing with CSM.” Though popularly conflated with child sexual abuse, the risk of clergy sexual misconduct remains and in a congregational system there’s little natural recourse for grievances (or protesting innocence).
It is a part of the larger Safety Net program, designed to address CSM and sponsored by the First Unitarian Universalist Church of Nashville (Tennessee). This kind of sponsored program — I should add — might be a good model for some of the functions lost by an over-stretched UUA and which might have once been picked up by the now cast-off independent affiliate organizations. Indeed, it looks like a manifestation of the growing fiscal sponsorship movement in non-profits, which should be seriously considered by any group hoping to start something new of a charitable nature.
I was a little amazed about the idea — from a special UUA Board meeting no less; where’s the fire? — that five regions should supplement and perhaps supersede the current nineteen districts.
Chutney asks who the losers would be. Staff, to be sure. That’s what reorganizations are for. But I wonder who the winners would be.
There shouldn’t be a reorganization unless there’s a good reason. And a good reason would be to devolve some of the functions centralized in the current system. Centralized, and I think unduly inhibited. At minimum, the following services should be decoupled from the center, apart from setting quality standards:
With this, I imagine, comes the spectre of independent fundraising and ministerial development arrangements — with one of the current seminaries, or without — and that needn’t be a bad thing.
But again, where’s the fire, or is this an effort to make lemonade — unwillingly — out of the lemons of feared financial insolvency?
Still getting my feet about putting longer-format, more-theological works at my RevScottWells.con blog. That’s where I put
