Who Do We Say We Are????

hello dear readers.

Since the UUA now has a new president, I thought I would repost this from a couple of years ago. With the beginning of a new administration, I think it's worth asking again.

The question about the UUA(or UUism): besides same-sex marriage, does the UUA(or UUism) have any passion for anything?

It doesn't seem to be spiritual development/formation or maturation, because if it were there would be more curricula out there. It doesn't seem to be religious literacy, or the kids who go through most UU Religious Education programs wouldn't come out as religiously ignorant as they were coming in and most adults would understand that the religious world is bigger than their past or current congregation. It doesn't even seem to be REAL social justice or we would be reaching out and working with the other religious progressives out there no matter what their religious stripe. (where is the UU version of Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker movement?)

For all their faults (and speaking as a former fundamentalist I know there are many), mega-churches have passion. They know what drives them: bringing people to Christ.

What drives the typical UU church? Where is their passion? In all this talk about growth in UU circles, nobody seems to be looking at the facts; the churches that are growing, no matter what theological stripe, have PASSION. They know what they want to do and try to find ways to do it. They have a story and can articulate it. They know their mission and can articulate that as well. These churches have DREAMS (and I'm not talking about strategic plans but real dreams). They see their place in the world. Most of all, they are NOT afraid.

So.....where's the UU's/UUA's passion?

Why I Wish Rosemary Bray McNatt Had Run For UUA President

(if Rev. McNatt happens to read this, I hope she sees this as the compliment it was intended to be)

I have been asked why I have been disappointed in the campaign run by both Hallman and Morales. I think it can be boiled down to one word: deflection. Both candidates deflect more often than they answer questions directly. And deflection can only go so far; at some point a candidate must answer the question posed or lose credibility.

That said, I think I should tell why I wish Rev. Rosemary Bray McNatt had run for UUA President.

If you, like me, have read Rev. McNatt's memoir, then you know that Rev. McNatt can be brutally frank about the rough parts of life. No deflection there. And that's something that I think that the UUA needs...brutal frankness.

Also, I think there is something to being a minister in New York City....a sort of no-nonsense directness that Rev. McNatt would have brought.

A third thing....Rev. McNatt (I believe) has a following among many UUs that could be marshaled in a positive way. With that, I think there are some internal discussions that could happen (like the continuing humanist/theist thing....or what exactly we mean when we talk about congregational polity) in a different way because some people would come to the table who might not have before.

Fourthly, Rev. McNatt's former life as a journalist means that she has a way of communicating that doesn't automatically put people off. No "minister-ease" or "theology-ease".

But of course, I am seeing these things from afar. And maybe I am projecting qualities on Rev. McNatt that she doesn't have. However I do think that there are some issues that the UUA is facing that really could have used Rev. McNatt's presence.

The UU Presidency Campaign I Would Like To Have Seen

Robin Edgar asks me who would I like to have seen running that is not running. I think that's a great question.

After GA in 2006, a really well-connected UU friend told me that they thought that a friend of theirs was seriously considering running for UUA President. When I asked who that person was, my friend told me that they would tell me once that person made a decision one way or the other.

The person who was considering a run was.....Rosemary Bray McNatt.

But Rev. McNatt is not the only person who I think would have made this campaign interesting. Pluse the grapevine told me that Marilyn Sewell and Terry Sweetser seriously thought about running.

The candidate I think we needed in this campaign was somebody who has a real vision and is really passionate about being the public face of Unitarian Universalism. And could articulate that passion. I just don't think either Laurel or Peter are that person. But I could be wrong. Or it could be that I'm just truly disappointed in the campaign both of them have run. Who knows?

'None Of The Above' for UUA President

Now that we are 3 weeks out from the election of a new UUA President, I thought that I would throw my $0.02 in on the campaign and the candidates.

I endorse 'None Of The Above'. It pains me to do that but it is the right endorsement for me.

I have watched both candidates campaign and (hate to say it) find nothing inspiring in either one of them. When asked direct questions about how they are going to deal with certain things related to the budget and staffing, both deflect. When asked about things related to anti-racism (whatever you feel about the UUA's anti-racism programs, it is a legitimate issue), both deflect. All their answers seem like non-answers.

But most of all, what is driving each of these candidates to run for UUA President? What is their passion? While both Laurel and Peter look to be nice people and I truly believe that both believe that they can and will bring something to the Presidency, in hearing them at different candidate forums neither one of them sounds like they have a driving passion to be President. And I'm sorry, while competence is important, passion is just as important. And I don't see that passion in either Peter or Laurel.

So, while I know that either Laurel or Peter will be the next President of the UUA, my endorsement goes to 'None Of The Above.'

Sanctimonious-ness, UU-style

So I'm going through UUpdates looking at the titles of different posts, and since I try to read the ones written by UU seminarians I was intrigued by the title "A UU Seminarian in Bibleland 2."

I knew things were not going to go well for me when I read the first paragraph:
So, another issue with being a UU Seminarian in Bibleland is that I'm listening to the rhetoric, and reading the Bible, but being a UU, I introduce reasoning into the mix, unfettered by the need to have everything neatly equal Jesus is Lord and the Bible is Inerrant.

Ah yes, UU sanctimony at its best. "I introduce reasoning into the mix," this seminarian says; as if the other members of that class are just blind followers and don't use reason. UUs don't hold the market on reason. I know many reasonable people who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.

I know what many of you dear readers are thinking---Real Anonymous, this seminarian didn't mean it the way you're reading it. You're right, this seminarian probably didn't mean it the way I read it. But it was said. We UUs aren't the only ones who reason. And just because others reason out something else, doesn't mean we should assume that our reasoning is the best.

Sanctimony doesn't serve us well. While most of us don't believe that Jesus is Lord or that the Bible is inerrant, there is much to learn from those in the other side. I hope this seminarian is really taking advantage of the blessing they have in being a UU in Bibleland.

The Answer To The Purposes and Principles Brouhaha

I've given it some thought and finally came up with the perfect answer to the whole debate on Article 2 of the UUA By-laws.

Keep the Purposes. Drop the Principles.

Simple.