In case you hadn’t gathered from the recent silence around here, we’re still traveling. Later today, the kids and I will drive up from my in-laws’ house to my mom’s, which is in the woods next to a lake far away from “real” internet (dial-up only!) and cell phone signal.

Bliss.

I realize more and more just how addicted I am to the internet and other media, how while I am away from it I can get used to a sense of disconnection, but when it’s available I’m all about linking in and finding out what I’ve missed. I’m not sure this is exactly unhealthy, but the pattern of behavior and habit is worth examining.

So, some more blog silence for awhile, and then an evaluation, for me, of just what it is I’m trying to do here and with my other online connections.

Just a note after lots of traveling that the UUWorld’s General Assembly blog has been corrected for the article mentioned below.

More conversation about the issue of the Bylaw change is also happening over at iminister.

I hate getting up before 5 a.m. as it makes my brain all muzzy.

uuaga 2008
uuaga08

A major clarification is needed over at the UUWorld General Assembly blog, reading the headline about a bylaw change at today’s Plenary: “Ministers can be terminated for incompetence.”

The bylaw that was changed has to do with ministerial fellowship — the credentialing process for ministers in relationship with the Association. What can be terminated for incompetence through this change is not a minister’s position with a congregation, but their fellowship with the Association.

Neither the UUA nor its Ministerial Fellowship Committee has the right to terminate a minister from a congregation, as the congregations are solely responsible for their own processes of calling a minister to service.

Just sayin’.

uuaga 2008
uuaga08

One more Plenary to go, with a pre-warning from Moderator-Goddess Gini Courter that we have way more business left than we have time, so we’ll probably go over.

I’m trying to look a little more closely at the process this year, in anticipation of next year when we’ll be debating changes to our Principles and Purposes, and I have to wonder if there is a way to meet the needs of having the Procedural microphone without interrupting the debate — currently, any delegate can hijack the debate of any given measure with questions (usually better answered by paying attention!) and eat up all of the allotted time for actual debate, since the Procedural microphone is recognized first and the debate clock doesn’t stop.

Any ideas out there, especially from those who have been delegates before?

uuaga 2008
uuaga08

This isn’t a new conclusion, but I am more and more convinced that the problems Unitarian Universalism is having with Youth and Young Adult ministry stem directly from a bankruptcy of spiritual and religious development — both in general in our movement and particularly with our kids. Here’s a list of items specifically from this General Assembly that are reconfirming this notion to me:

Rev. Christine Robinson, in her remarkable Berry Street address on Wednesday, remarked that we teach our kids everything one could ever know about sex, but we play “don’t ask, don’t tell” with matters of the spirit.

Rev. Bill Sinkford, in his President’s Report, specifically noted that it many cases across our Association, support for Youth and Young Adults is “woefully inadequate,” and called for a reimagining of Youth Ministry deeply rooted in spiritual development.

At a workshop on assumptions surrounding our treatment of Young Adults, the central argument of which was that we should treat all people in our churches of all ages as individuals, rather than focusing on identity-based affinities, it was not until the very end that the idea of spiritual development and need was really addressed. Barb Greves, a Young Adult leader, spoke very eloquently on the lack of connection of Youth and Young Adults to the adult life of our congregations, calling out the need to teach our kids how to be active and responsible adult members of the church in addition to giving them their own targeted programs. Another point that was made, not specifically related to spiritual development but well taken, is that the presence of a Young Adult “group” does not indicate the presence of a healthy Young Adult community. It is only when you see Young Adults working in areas of their own interest in every aspect of the church that you have true multigenerational community.

Breakthrough Congregation videos presented in Plenary specifically mention integrating children into the whole life of the congregation as being keys to their success — one stated, “We have developed a culture of treating children as human beings.” Another spoke of involving Youth intentionally in all areas of the church’s life, and third stated plainly, “It’s not about babysitting on Sunday mornings.” These kinds of practices and attitudes, I feel, are key if we want to retain our Youth and Young Adults. We need to give them their own roles in the community, specific to them as individuals.

I heard second hand about the Bridging “worship” service last night from someone who walked out in disgust. One speaker spent his time trashing every adult advisor he had ever worked with. The music groups involved had nothing to do with Unitarian Universalism, and stated so from the microphones. Other presenters spent their time talking about domestic abuse and brawls in gay bars. There was no worship. There were no connections to the idea of “Bridging” from youth to adulthood. (Again, this is second hand, but I’ll vouch for the source.)

The report of the Consultation on Ministry to and with Youth had some prime examples of how we are failing our kids in spiritual development, too. The working group that has come out of the process has great goals: a truly comprehensive youth ministry that is congregationally based, multigenerational, spirit-centered, and radically inclusive. And yet they quoted several youth talking about their “spirituality,” saying things like, “I believe in peace and love” as the whole of their theological reflection — that’s great, if you’re five, but when you’re fifteen?!

This is not the religious centering that we owe our kids. We’re not teaching our Youth and Young Adults how to articulate, or to act on their innate religious impulses. We’re letting them flounder all on their own, and this has to stop.

I’ve witnessed a certain style of communication among our Youth and Young Adult leaders, a positive way of seeking to honor one another’s situation and not acting solely on assumptions, encouraging a culture where we go deeper, faster, as the Rev. Forrest Church calls us to do, to ask questions when we’re not sure of something — something that I’ve noticed adults are generally not that good at. This needs to be cultivated, and broadened with a deeper religious vocabulary than we currently offer our young people, so that they can speak authentically to their religious impulses as well as their social values.

Somehow, we are succeeding at giving our young people the tools to built authentic relationships with other people, but we’re not giving them the tools to develop a relationship with the sacred, with that which is beyond themselves.

For example, when we teach comparative religions, are we offering our youth any sense of their own ownership of Unitarian Universalist history, specifically Unitarian and Universalist religious concepts? Why are we asking our people, of all ages, to reinvent the spiritual wheel for themselves? “Spirituality,” without historical, theological, and real-life grounding is nebulous, and usually empty. We have so much to learn from that which came before, all of us.

I’m also thinking more about the labels we place on our programs, and what messages they send our kids. What does the phrase, “Religious Exploration” versus “Religious Education” say to our kids? Is it furthering the idea of the theology of “wandering in the wilderness?”

These are interesting conversations that we need to start having on deeper and deeper levels, across our Association.

uuaga 2008
uuaga08

You might remember me ranting and raving about the Youth and Young Adult Empowerment Resolution a few weeks back.

Unsurprisingly, but disappointingly, it passed by an overwhelming margin this morning in Plenary.

I did speak from the floor against it, and I had good company in the esteemed former Moderator of the UUA Denny Davidoff, as well as other eloquent speakers. However, those who chose to speak from the “Con” microphone with real objections regarding the structure and implementation of the resolution were effectively silenced by manipulation of our own “Democratic” process.

First, my objections to the resolution itself that I spoke:

1. It lumps Youth and Young Adult programming into one large group, as if people aged 14 to 35 can be served by the same targeted programming. In a few years, this puts me and my son in the same constituency, when we obviously have very different needs from our religious community.

2. It lumps requested support from three distinct structures of governance — the Association, districts, and individual congregations — into the same obligations, without regard for the different needs our Youth and Young Adults have from these structures, nor how Youth and Young Adults might be better served from these structures finding new ways to work in tandem to provide the programming, services, and support that we need.

3. It places a misguided emphasis on self-directed anti-racism and anti-oppression training for Youth and Young Adults, when this is work that all of our generations should be working on together. This emphasis continues a culture where it is all too easy to pass the importance of this work off to only our younger members, as “their” issue, rather than the denominationally-wide movement it should and could be.

Another objection that I did not voice, knowing that my husband planned to speak, was the adverse effect this resolution may have on the work of the Youth Ministry Task Force, convened as a culmination of three years of work and the input of more than 5000 individuals across the denomination. However, he never got to make his own statement.

The way our process works is that there are three microphones set up for debate: Pro, Con, and Procedure. The Procedure microphone is always recognized first, and takes precedence over the Pro and Con. Debate alternates between Pro and Con, with Pro usually going first. Debate on a business resolution like this one is limited to 30 minutes, unless an extension is moved, seconded, and passes a vote.

The first person who was recognized was a Board representative at the Procedural microphone, who read a statement from the UUA Board in support of the resolution. I do not understand why this happened from the Procedural microphone, rather than the Pro, particularly considering a long line of people at both the Pro and Con microphones. It probably had something to do with it being a statement of endorsement from a body that cannot vote within the General Assembly, rather than the position of a delegate, but this was not stated. And, the delegate at the Pro microphone, who happened to be one of the co-authors of the resolution, was still recognized first in the debate.

Then we went back and forth between Pro and Con a few times, before long lines of people started to show up at the Procedural microphone — some with legitimate questions, but others making pronouncements about the practicalities of putting the resolution into action if passed.

Then a delegate just in front of me at the Con microphone made a statement that ended with something along the lines of “Don’t vote for this resolution. . . UNLESS you want more youth involvement, more lifelong UUs, more young adult ministers. . . ” etc, which ostensibly made the statement one in support of the resolution, rather than against it. Considering the long line of people behind him at the Con microphone who ended up not able to make their concerns heard because of the time constraints and the growing number of people at the Procedural microphone (who are recognized before additional Pro or Con statements, remember), I found this patently unfair — there were effectively three Pro statements made in a row rather than equal time given to the opposition as called for in our agreed-upon rules of procedure.

The Youth Caucus, several prominent Youth and Young Adult leaders, and C*UUYAN representatives all were able to make their statements, but the voices of those in true opposition of the resolution (not show-boating) were simply not heard on an equal footing. Debate was extended once by 20 minutes in the middle of things, and a second time by two minutes to allow a delegate at the Pro microphone to finish her statement. A motion to extend a third time, by the six minutes that would have allowed three more statements (two in opposition and one in support) to have been made was voted down.

The substance and structure of the resolution were barely up for discussion. Instead, the debate was hijacked, to be quite honest, to make the vote seem like an end-all, be-all referendum on whether or not we support the Youth and Young Adults in our movement. And who can vote against that?

And so, by an overwhelming majority, this fundamentally flawed resolution was passed. And in the words of Denny Davidoff, it “make promises that many congregations cannot keep. It will make a mockery of the democratic process.” Now lots of people can go home feeling warm fuzzies about “supporting the youth,” whether their individual congregations have any intention of following up on the actions listed in the resolution itself.

Personally, I doubt many congregations or their members will bother to even read it. This is hardly any kind of watershed victory for Youth or Young Adult ministry.

uuaga 2008
uuaga08

These statements stuck with me today (some are grossly paraphrased ’cause I can’t write very fast, but you get the idea):

“Unitarian Universalism is not the lowest common denominator, but rather the highest common calling for humanity.” ~~ Rev. Sarah Lammert in morning worship

“We strive to create a culture of treating children as human beings.” ~~ Breakthrough congregation video for the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Wayne County in Wooster, OH

“Do we want a statement that one might wish to have read to them on their deathbed?” ~~ question posed by the Commission on Appraisal as they go through the review process on the Association’s Principles and Purposes

“We need a comprehensive Youth Ministry that is deeply rooted in spiritual development.” ~~ UUA President William Sinkford in his annual report

“The opposite of love is not hate, but fear. Love may be grief’s advance party, but we need the risk of it just as we need breath.” ~~ Rev. Forrest Church

“We must recognize our own idols and dash them down. . . Freedom. Knowledge. Tolerance. We must question the way we are blinded by our own icons.” ~~ Rev. Forrest Church

“There is more love somewhere. I’m gonna keep on till I find it, there is more love somewhere.” ~~ hymn following the sermon at the Service of the Living Tradition

uuaga 2008
uuaga08

A quick note to say that I’m reserving judgement on Jason Shelton’s Sources Cantata performed for the opening ceremony last night due to the incredibly awful sound engineering that distorted all aspects of the performance completely. I would have to hear it again, in a much better venue with actual competent technicians, to say anything substantive in the least.

Honestly, the people in charge of the technical aspects owe Jason, Kendyl Gibbons, and all of the musicians apologies. It was an absolute travesty.

That said, I do have these three preliminary comments:

The first major musical “happening” was all about the word “death.” I found that disturbing. In fact, from what I read of the lyrics on the screens because I could not understand a word any of the singers were pronouncing due to the distorted sound, I’m rather skeptical of the directions they went. But again, my impressions are incomplete.

I very much liked the “pagan” movement, but would have appreciated a better view of the sign language thing that lots of people seemed to have been prepared for ahead of time.

I am very impressed with the way, musically, the Jewish and Christian section came together as one coherent piece of music. But again, I’d like to see all of the lyrics before I say much about the piece as a whole, and I would especially like to hear that particular soloist in a much more appropriate acoustical setting. It was obvious he had some real skill, not that we in the audience could appreciate it!

More later.

uuaga 2008
uuaga08

I simply can’t say enough good things about today’s Berry Street address by the Rev. Christine Robinson from Albuquerque, New Mexico, and that’s not just because I know her and already think she’s cool.

Her essay on spiritual risk-taking was simply exquisite. Honest, deep, and pulling no punches, inspiring and uplifting and prophetic.

Her basic premise is that Unitarian Universalism as a whole is crying out for a greater spiritual depth, a depth that has not been seen within living memory, a depth that begins with the personal spiritual life of the minister. She wants to see our denomination work to enable our ministers to be “Imagineers of the Soul,” able to teach our people, and help them heal from whatever spiritual shame and hurt they have experienced, and then to feed them what they need to grow as spiritual beings.

What struck me most in her descriptions of many of our members was the distinction she drew for those who come from past spiritual “trauma” — that it is not so much about “wounds” of the soul, or about guilt, but about the shame that many have experienced in other faiths. This is language that I have needed in my own struggles.

I usually turn to the word “guilt” to describe how I felt when I first realized that I just plain didn’t believe the teachings of my former churches, though I still felt an obligation that I should — but it is shame and not guilt that still rears its ugly head for me. Guilt stems from something that has been done or not done — shame stems from a feeling that there is something inherently or fundamentally wrong with a person, an existential state of being. And that’s much deeper and more powerful than guilt. But being able to name it — that’s healing, at least for me.

The other point Christine made today that resonates with me is how easy it is for those who have been deeply shamed about their spiritual experiences to do the exact same thing to those around them, but in the other direction — say if someone wants to talk about god or prayer in one of our congregations. And, “in the spiritual community,” she said, “scorn is deadly.”

We’re not going to talk about our personal spiritual experiences if we feel we will be ridiculed or scorned — these things are too fragile, too deep, and too scary to reveal.

And that’s where the minister comes in. If the leader of your religious community is intentionally taking spiritual risks, putting their own spiritual life out there as a model, the people are more likely to get the message that that’s what church is for.

There’s more, much more, and as soon as the essay is online, I’ll put a link here.

John’s response was a perfect compliment to the essay. Coming from the perspective of a brand new minister, faced with all of the challenges a congregation can throw at a person, he articulated the balance that is so necessary and so difficult between being that “Imagineer of the Soul” but also a manager, running all of the administrative “stuff.” What it comes down to, for him, is the act of praying with the congregation, in addition to preaching to them, and living the spiritual life out loud.

And he delivered what he had to say absolutely beautifully. I am so very proud.

uuaga 2008
uuaga08

I’m standing in the Cyber Cafe in the Exhibit Hall after picking up my registration, ribbons, and delegate card, and there are lots of people starting to trickle in. I’ll be riding with friends to the offsite location for Ministry Days to hear John respond to the Berry Street address in just a few minutes (I suppose I’ll listen to the address itself, too… ;-) ).

I hadn’t thought too much about how next year’s UUA presidential election will affect this year’s GA, but it’s definitely starting. The Morales and Hallman booths are right next to each other at the front of the hall, both staffed with enthusiastic volunteers and filled with lots of free stuff (and chocolate!); the campaign ads are right next to each other in the program book, and there are several opportunities over the week to hear what they both have to say.

I don’t know either candidate, though I know people firmly in both camps. Ferreting out the more public differences between them will be an interesting task — knowing someone personally is one thing, and gives a unique perspective, but those of us who don’t have that “in” are so far in the dark.

And of course the Barack and Hillary comparisons are flying wildly. Oy. I will do my best to not let my feelings about Hillary color what I might learn about Laurel Hallman.

More later!

uuaga 2008
uuaga08