Category Archives: Mission and Polity

Moving up to two cents a day

Leave a reply

Hubby and I are visiting Philadelphia. I consider visiting the National Museum of American Jewish History and when I looked at the website noticed a coin savings box. The two-cents-a-week rate remind me of the “two cents a day plan” the Universalists (PDF) once ran for missions.

Two cents a day (even in 1896) doesn’t sound like very much, but would that be today? (This resource to the rescue.)

About 56.24 cents a day, or more than $205 a year. Far more than the usual “chalice lighters” ask of $60. Food — and funds — for thought.

New “Union Prayer Book” and old “Parish Practice” arrived today

1 Reply

I’ll keep this brief because I came home feeling not-so-well today. Two books that I had ordered arrived: the hot-off-the-presses new addition of the Union Prayer Book, Sinai Edition, Revised And a used copy of Parish Practice in Universalist Churches, by Robert Cummins.

image

The first is a modern adaptation of a classic Reform Jewish prayer book and I’m excited to review it since it has many of the same liturgical sensibilities of classic Unitarian liturgy. Indeed the Sinai referred to in the title is Chicago Sinai Congregation, its source. Chicago, as many of my readers know, is also a wellspring of this Unitarian liturgical tradition I referenced.

The other book is what it says on the label, written in 1946 by a well-loved, now-deceased General Superintendent of the Universalist Church of America. Fun fact: This copy was withdrawn from Andover Newton and was last checked out 40 years ago.

More details about these, and the Coptic works I’ve been writing about as soon as I can.

Community makes the church, or church the community?

1 Reply

When last I wrote about community, I ran down the idea of churches being community for their own sake. Churches for the sake of community only makes sense where people live in settings so dense or so atomized that community has to be constructed. Other, functional habitations have communities apart from churches, and these organize around public spaces, work places, shops, schools or other institutions. (Online communities are worth their own discussion.) Churches and other religious congregations can be a part of that mix, but when it bears more of the burden either the community becomes tinged with a self-selecting theological color (think of city-sized megachurches) or the congregation sanctifies the social preferences (dare I say prejudices) of its membership. Unitarian Universalists, having congregations too small to make their own weather, sometimes or often fall into this second category. The evidence is the rhetoric of refuge. That “this congregation is a liberal outpost in a conservative town” — little regarding other congregations a bit less liberal or regions far more conservative — is a common trope. And since these preferences come with class and generational markers, they aren’t as welcoming as they like to believe. Not necessarily unfriendly, but as a forty-something, geek-esque, child-free gay urbanite, they’re often boring, irrelevant or twee. Too often I feel like the unwilling recipient of a child’s mud pie and being asked to taste it. (No.) And in this regard Unitarian Universalists are very much like other congregations that try and welcome Hubby and me. I’ve given up hope of just stumbling on a church that will function for us both, and that we can function within.

Because of our polity, Unitarian Universalists tend to think that religious community is squarely the product of covenanted congregations, with a strong attachment placed to the overt and explicit covenant between members (and between them and God.) This is also reinforced by custom and — in no small way — the law and regulations behind determining what makes a church a church. (IRS regs and tax court rulings make illuminating if perplexing reading.) But if pressed we find evidence of valued religious life in religious gatherings, camps and meetings. We worship (or have worshiped) in college chapels and in military installations. There are invocations at Rotary and in demonstrations. Some ministers have their study groups, and others have volunteer service camps. Either serving or being served, we know of hospital and hospice chaplains. And some use social media to deepen their religious lives. There are alternatives to the congregation, conventionally conceived, new and old.

What many of these have in common are that they are existing communities where religious activity is introduced for the spiritual needs of its participants. Whether an old form or new, perhaps it bears repeating that a church — even with a subtle and implied covenant — can exist in the communities we already have, rather than setting up a church to have the community we lack.

A new fellowship: a thoughts and an outline

1 Reply

I was thinking there were lessons — good and cautionary — when I read the fifty-year-old Whittier (Ca.) Havurah, the first Jewish “fellowship” (one translation for ḥavurah) was winding up its affairs. (Jewish Daily Forward, “Whittier Celebrates the Last Hurrah of America’s First Havurah,” July 13, 2011) Generation-locked, under-organized, perhaps too inventive being the downsides of youth-oriented, free and creative. Little wonder many of the newer ḥavurot blend orthodoxy, egalitarianism, participation and tradition in a way that’s neither/nor, and not Whittier’s model but still new. I’d seek one out — D.C. has its choices — were I Jewish.

I’ve written how this movement (and here) has appealed to me, so I won’t labor that. Instead, I’ll lift up Kim Hampton’s pointed “who’s planting?” concern. Sure it would be nice if there were different kind of church planting and all were well funded. So whether the desired form of church, or the best under the circumstances, consider:

  • a congregation of twelve to twenty that aspired to well-crafted worship, individualized spiritual development and mobilizing a pool of helpers to accomplish social ministry.
  • where worship is something shared between the members and had wide participation as a stated value.
  • not affiliating with the Unitarian Universalist Association, but staying in communication with the district and nearest congregations, and in other ways minimize administration
  • assisting new, like groups spring up in unlikely places or among unlikely populations.
  • develop its own leadership, but cooperatively develop the resources to do so.
  • be prepared to disband — as an option, not a failure — when and if the times demand.

 

 

New business (and thus church) organization laws in the District of Columbia

1 Reply

I think the District of Columbia got new business organization laws yesterday. The I think is because of our Home Rule charter, which requires a congressional review period, which is based on the uncertainty of projecting out legislative days. But the new Title 29 was scheduled to become law yesterday.

Based on the Uniform Law Commission recommended acts, the new D.C. code is promised to make us up-to-date and organized and endlessly blissful. Fine. All I care about (for this blog) is the unincorporated nonprofit organization provisions, which I’ve written about several times.

Why, and why for churches? Because our practical polity — the votes, and reports and Board of Trustees part that we associate with “how churches run” — is a legacy of the law, not our theological understanding of how churches should work. We in the United States churches are heirs to a complex set of customs, laws and structures that having grown so complex have been simplified to be manageable and then hallowed with age. Historically, what is “in trust” for the trustees? The building or other assets, and the trustees were apart but related to the congregation. But then the laws changed to allow churches to incorporate in their own name. But why incorporation? Because it protects the property and officers. (Indeed, why pledge? Because the old pew owner system was unfair and — I bet – unreliable.)

But with new laws come new opportunities, if we can make use of them. The unincorporated nonprofits under this law don’t need incorporation to protect the property or officers or members. And without incorporation, no corporate structures. A small congregational church can — should it so wish — operate as a direct democracy. Or the trustees can be retired and offices  like the diaconate — once more practical than spiritual —  can take their former place. And it comes with the hope of easier administration, or at least administration that fits the theology. (A question for Unitarian Universalists: how does your incorporation fit with your church covenant? I bet “not at all.”)

But it’s not an option for many, so far. The revised uniform act (one that’s meaningfully fleshed out for my comfort) is only the law in Arkansas, Iowa, Nevada and now — I suppose — D.C.

Old Unitarian polity resource proves evergreen

1 Reply

So I had my e-book reader out, waiting on a meeting with a colleague during General Assembly.  I noted to him — no names, but he’s a solid Humanist, by means of showing the perspective — that I was reading  Handbook for Unitarian Congregational Churches. He said it was written by unanattributed Samuel Eliot, and that parts of it are still useful (especially that related to ordinations and installations) and it — with a Universalist manual I’ll describe later — should be required reading for ministerial candidates.

Downloadable from Google Books.

Can’t argue with that.

 

What’s the highest numbered congregation in the UUA?

9 Replies

A somewhat frivolous question follows.

I noticed a tweet saying the Fourth Unitarian Society of Westchester County, New York, has “become a Welcoming Congregation,” which is denominational language meaning a congregation has enrolled in a program of the same name showing its intention and welcome persons in sexual orientation minorities. It’s been around since 1989 and isn’t that controversial these days, so that’s not what I focused on. You see: I like church names.

Fourth? How did that one pass me. I had, of course, known of the Fourth Universalist Society in the City of New York, in Manhattan. Then there’s the First, Second and Third churches in Chicago, plus the Seconds in Omaha and Worcester. And then there’s the well-known example of the defunct Twenty-eighth Congregational Society in Boston, founded as a platform for (and continued for a few decades as a memorial to) Theodore Parker.

So the question: is there any Unitarian Universalist Association-member church extant — perhaps existing legally thus, but not common known as — numbered higher than four?  Does anyone know of a church within living memory that went as high a five?

Funding: a distributed model

Leave a reply

Unitarian Universalist minister and blogger Dan Harper has been going over one of my more frequent — I can’t say favorite — concerns: the decline in churches in our denomination. Several aspects have come up; let’s think about funding.

It might shock some modern Unitarian Universalists to think that some of our churches were once state-supported, and later supported by pew rent. The current canvass and pledge model is only one model in our history. Why not fee for service? That would certainly cast a light on a programs for which there is little more than a sentimental attachment. Or more earned income — particularly in congregations that have more property than needed? Or sponsoring a grant-supported (even government grant supported) program for the public good. (If we’re worried about, say, LGBT discrimination or theological indoctrination, through government-supported faith-based initiatives, then we really should enter the fray.)

Now that the lede is good and buried, let me describe one mode of funding that will be new to many, but not so radical as to be unapproachable. Some call it crowdfunding. That is, an organized mass appeal, usually of small donors, who fund a particular project. The appeal will usually have a defined time-span and a financial goal that indicates success. If people fund the project fully, it will go ahead. But not if not.

In a church setting, I would probably fund something non-core and non-capitalized this way. Say, a regional conference, a youth trip or to develop a training plan for evangelism. But not the minister’s salary or the light bill. Or a new R.E. wing. And I would make the crowdfunded part only one source of funding, say, with a challenge grant or a large, lead donor.

There are variations on a theme, but Kickstarter is one of the largest. I featured a Kickstarter initiative a few months ago on the sidebar, for a tool to improve internet privacy, and they raised almost $87,000: far more than their goal. But unless it’s a creative project — say, perhaps, to create a new hymnal — Kickstarter won’t accept the project. (And perhaps not even then.)

But there are alternatives and the model itself — with the side effect that those who believe in it will have to promote it — is worth exploring. (IndieGoGo and Invested.in are others.)

So while I’m at it, why not support a campaign in progress? The Red Theater, co-founded by Aaron Sawyer, is going to stage Red Hamlet this August in the Minnesota Fringe Festival, and it needs funding help. You might know Aaron through his other work: DiscoverUU.org. (As the husband of a Fringe writer-producer, I hear the call.)

Be sure to give. Donations start at $5. 13 days and about $2,100 to go.

Those United, Uniting polity statements

Leave a reply

In my last blog post, I made reference to the adherent status within the United Church of Canada and the Uniting Church in Australia. I don’t approve of every assumption here, but since I brought it up thought it better to work with clear definitions.

So time to give citations . . . but before that, a commendation: I really like the logical way the United Church of Canada site is laid out, and how the manuals are released under Canada 2.5 version of the Creative Commons BY-NC-ND license. OK: half a commendation, because it’s the “least liberal” of the liberal licenses, allowing the unhindered, noncommercial redistribution of the resource (with attribution), but nothing else. And it doesn’t apply to their Manual, see below.

Now the documents:

United Church of Canada. Congregation Organization Handbook. PDF. See pg. 9, which refers back to the UCCan Manual. See Basis of Union section 5.8.2, Bylaws section 001 and in passim.

“Adherent”  means a person who is attached to a Congregation and who contributes regularly to its life and work while not being a member thereof.

Uniting Church in Australia. See Constitution and Regulations. PDF. See section 3. Adherents do not have a vote, but there is a roll, adherents and considered a part of the congregation with members, and they may be orderly transfered from congregation to congregation. (Regulations 1.1.22–1.1.24)

Adherent means a person not being a member or a member-in-association but recognised as sharing in the life of the Congregation and within the pastoral responsibility of the Church. (Constitution, section 3)

And for clarity, a member-in-association is an ecumenical distinction for “a member of another Christian denomination but not actively engaged in the life of that denomination and participates in the corporate life of the Congregation and accepts the polity and discipline of the Church” or “participates actively in the corporate life of two Congregations of the Church and is enrolled as a confi rmed member of the other Congregation” (Regulations 1.1.11)