This colleague never came to UUMA cluster meetings, cut themself off from the other ministers here (by not returning calls or e-mails and indeed saying things like, “You need collegial relationships more than I do.” Click. Dial tone…).

This minister has just resigned. The congregation is battered and bruised. But no other minister raised their voice to object to what was happening, or to call out this colleague on their bad behaviour. This congregation is now more suspicious of professional ministry than ever. Old Boys Club hush-hush and WASP niceness can only reinforce this mistrust.

Speak the truth! Nice is a four letter word!

With that said, the minister Scott speaks of goes after seminarians and others not yet in full fellowship. Hard to file a complaint against a seasoned colleague to the very body that will credential you.

That expectation (ie, that clergy should be well-behaved lap dogs rather than hounds of heaven, if you will) has lasted until our present day. I certainly see it in the eyes of folks who meet me at parties and say, in delighted tones, “But you’re so REAL! How can you be a minister?” I see it also in the prim disapproval of ministers who, when their colleagues refuse to conform to that persona, claim some violation of collegial appropriateness. I’ve watched this dynamic unfold between colleagues dozens of times. Not just in our association, either.

I have found that such self-appointed gatekeepers of Ministerial Propriety will freely insult others but the difference is, they do it so nicely. It isn’t the content anyone truly cares about; you must say things nicely.

Of course, this approach to right relations has damaged countless of our congregations, because colleagues were more invested in being nice to each other than in calling out their colleagues for damaging and pernicious practices in the parish.

Not only did our spiritual forebears kick each other’s asses theologically, they also participated in mutual admonition, as did congregations for each other. We have lost this practice in our free association and I believe it is MUCH to our detriment. Commitment to “nice” has led bullies and narcissists to monopolize our worship services and congregational meetings, all in the name of “inclusivity” or “acceptance.” We think we know how to converse respectfully but in many cases, we do not converse at all but enforce a conformity that we silently hope will protect us from wildly dysfunctional people. That doesn’t work, of course.

I believe (and am living out this belief!) that the 19th century model of ministry is WASPy, male and ultimately faithless. It values polite society over truth-telling. It is deadly earnest and humorless, and repels people who hunger for authenticity from leaders.

So this loud-mouth New York Jew by heritage, Unitarian Universalist by birth, and Christian by baptism will continue to live faithfully, if not always “nicely.”

He is not a seminary professor or staffer. The behavior I know about was a few years ago; I do not know if it continues.

A minister with more clout than I tried to have action taken against him, with no success.

My only recourse is to glare at him when — rarely these days — I see him.

Guidelines were meant to enjoin us to be cautious about slamming someone else’s professional competence in public — in part not to play into our churches’ already strong anti-clerical bias.

Sometimes this distinction may be difficult to parse. The responses of some of the SKSM students to this whole tempest does tempt one to slam the professional competence of someone. But that only escalates things, doesn’t it, and the comments speak for themselves as to the level of reasoning employed by some of the students at the school.

As to Guidelines Protecting sexual misconduct, they are meant to do the opposite. Scott, if you know of a professor at one of our seminaries who is sexually involved with students, that person should be reported to the MFC.

Not sure what I am going to do with all this stuff (or rather what my heirs will do it). At this point my verbal instructions is to give it to the Universalist Heritage folks to keep or dispose of as they will (they prefer stuff to book).

Jeff, as my “neighbor”, let me know what you need to read to help your studies, and I’ll see what I got.

My latest acquisition was an original edition 1840 “An Exposition and Defence of Universalism, in a Series of Sermons Delivered in the Universalist Church, Baltimore, MD” by Rev. I. D. Williamson. It is water-stained by 100% readable and the binding is still tight. $20 at a used bookshop in Chapel Hill, NC.

I’ll admit to several motives in collecting these things. First, I love reading the old documents of our faith. Second, obviously, it is important for my academic research. But I also gather them out of fear that otherwise they may eventually be disposed of. These voices from the past nurtured souls, gave them hope and courage, and maybe I’m sentimental but I just feel like they deserve an honorable and pleasant retirement in their old age. At least with me I know they’ll be treated respectfully and will eventually be used to endow a university library so that future generations can learn about our past.

By the way, have you completed your big book sell-off?

Criticism of other ministers empowers seminarians and junior clergy and helps to dispel the Old Boys Club phenomenon Scott raises. In fact, ability to speak one’s mind is one of the few tools for power that the less powerful have in a situation such as seminary, ministerial association, church, or national denomination. They don’t hold the reins and must use their voices instead to counter actual power, if the need arises. As a layperson, I deeply hope that clergy will be encouraged to (responsibly) criticize each other in public so that I may be aware of the forces at work in my church and denomination and so that I may have a chance at input, rather than being shut out of backroom affairs.