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?

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.

Credentials Credentials All Over The Place pt. 2

Steve Caldwell wrote a comment to my original post that I've been mulling since I read it.

In my opinion, the real reason for having professional associations and credentialing for the musicians and other professionals in our congregations is the code of ethics that comes from professional associations.

It's not important if one has an alphabet soup of academic letters after one's name.

But avoiding unethical behavior like a musician violating copyright laws or any church professional using power and authority to take advantage of a congregant sexually is important for our congregations.

As I said in my original post, I understand the need/want for credentialing both ministers and religious educators. But Steve's comment really points out my concern.

When one is talking about the arts (music, writing, acting, etc.), what are the codes of ethics? Pardon my ignorance, but I've never heard of a musician's code of ethics. By their very nature the arts are incestuous (creatively incestuous, not the other incestuous); and music especially so. So the issues that would come up in other professions' codes of ethics do not apply.

And even when you start talking about issues of copyright and so forth, those are really matters of law and not ethics because issues of fair use and what is in the public domain is very different when one is talking about the arts. And they become even more complicated when one is talking about the arts in a church setting.

But my real concern is the message that credentialing musicians might send. As the music program of a church is going to be mostly populated by those who are NOT professional musicians, won't credentialing musicians turn off those really gifted musicians who aren't professional?

Again as I said in my original post, I understand wanting quality music programs. What I don't understand is how credentialing musicians brings that any closer.

Credentials Credentials All Over The Place

Hello dear readers.
I've been meaning to write about this for a while, and now I have a few minutes to do it.

I get it! UUs like credentialing people. Really, I get it!

And for some things I can understand the want for it.....I understand the need for credentialing/fellowshipping ministers. I understand the want for credentials for religious educators (although I have some reservations about what that process is and how they go about it).

What I don't......repeat DON'T......understand is the need for credentialing musicians. Can somebody please explain this to me?

Let me be perfectly clear, I understand the want for really good, quality music programs in church. In fact I think most UU churches are behind the curve on that front. What I do not understand is what the credentialing of musicians brings to us as a movement other than just another bureaucratic thing.

As music is one of the best avenues to get people involved in a church, I'm more than a little concerned at the signal that this sends. But hey, I've been known to be wrong. Maybe this doesn't send out the signal that I think it sends.

Opinions?

Is God Keeping You From Church?

Aside from the fact that this is seldom the case for anybody(normally it's the "church" that keeps people from walking in the doors), I think the main problem with the UUA's new marketing campaign is that it is so blatently a marketing campaign. One of these days, somebody in Boston is going to remember the real facts....that most of the people who walk into a church are there at the invitation of somebody else.

This is not to say that targeted marketing doesn't work, it does, and the evangelicals have proven it; but just blanket marketing doesn't work. And nothing works better than the good old-fashion face-to-face, door-to-door neighborhood canvass. But as our lives have changed, that is not as feasible an option. The next best option, and one that I know many evangelicals have used, is leafletting a neigborhood inviting those in that neighborhood to join a church for services.

I'm digressing. Over at Philocrites (http://www.philocrites.com) a little while ago, Philocrites asked those of us who read his blog what campaign slogan we would come up with. At the time, I didn't like any of the ones that popped up in my mind. Now though, I've finally come up with one that satisfies me and I think would show some real creative tension for us.

So here it is, dear reader, my UUA campaign slogan:
Grounded in the Spirit...Acting in the World....the Unitarian Universalist Association

Whaddya think?????