sex, secrets and the “p” word (power/polyamory, you choose)

26 Apr

Note: This sermon deals primarily with the struggles of a particular congregation from the period of 2000-2005. I share it here so that current and previous congregants might be able to reference it, and with the hope that it might be helpful for other congregations struggling with similar issues. Be warned: it is very, very long. During the service, I divided it up into 3 parts, linked to here for easy navigation:
Part 1: Sex
Part 2: Secrets
Part 3: Power

Listen here:

Part 1: Sex

Americans, at the very least, are obsessed with who has sex with whom, and when, and how. Some of us wonder how far we have come from the Scarlet Letter, written by Nathaniel Hawthorne and taking place around 1650. In this classic, Hester Pryne has a child outside of wedlock and in punishment is shunned by the community and forced to wear a scarlet A on her dress at all times. Those Puritans embraced sex inside of marriage, but heaven help you if you indulged pre or extra-maritally. But by the 18th century, Americans had come a long way. In fact, by many standards, we’re actually more puritanical than we were then. At that point, American men loved telling dirty jokes and playing sexual pranks, “they sang outrageously ribald songs, they drew scandalous cartoons, and they masturbated in the churchyard when they thought the sermon was boring.” – Please do not take that as a suggestion! “They spied on each other through the cracks in the cabin walls, they had sex in haylofts, and they told everybody they knew when they got laid. There was no expectation of privacy” in 18th century America. Of course, one on one heterosexual sex was the norm – no one was doing anything like this around same-gendered sex. And I doubt it was as much fun for women.

Thankfully, we are a bit more civilized than they were back then. Certainly we’ve come a long way in understanding the equality of genders, privacy, consent, and same-sex relationships. But there’s at least one thing that we’ve brought forward from 300 years ago: our undying curiosity with who is having sex with whom, and how they do it.

In our hetero-normative society, where male/female sexual pairings are considered the norm, the curiosity is pretty basic. But add some variety in there and our curiosity has a tendency to move into the realm of dehumanization: we no longer see the people involved as human beings with inherent worth and dignity. Instead, we sexually objectify them and see them as no more than the sum of their genital parts and what they do with them.

This was played out on the main cultural stage during the AIDS crisis in the 1980s – people assumed everyone who had AIDS was gay and had therefore indulged in anal sex, which, apparently, was reason enough for you to be shunned by society. Those who were diagnosed were dehumanized in such a way that Hester Pryne would have felt like her sentence was pretty light in comparison.

Straight people in power reduced the gay community to a single sex act. There was no room for being a whole person, for forming loving relationships, for living as a human being with all the attendant messiness, wonder, pain, struggle, joy – the whole kit and caboodle of life. Even today, though many of us struggle to change the standard, for much of the population calling something “gay” is still a put-down.

Thankfully, the tide has been turning on the dehumanization of gay & lesbian people for quite a while. As same-sex marriage becomes more recognized and accepted, the cultural mind doesn’t immediately go to a sexual act when they hear the term “gay couple” but instead are beginning to picture a family where the adults happen to be gay.

Bisexual and pansexual folks are often still often sexually objectified, though – people seem to assume that these descriptors mean that you are unable to be in a committed relationship because you must have sex with everyone you see. Which is ridiculous. It simply means that you have the capacity to love people regardless of their biological plumbing.

Unfortunately, the cultural jury is also still out on whether intersex or transgender people are really human beings. I haven’t yet seen Diane Sawyer’s interview with Bruce Jenner which aired earlier this week, but the interview Katie Couric did last year with Laverne Cox, a trans woman who is phenomenal in her role, as a trans woman, on Orange is the New Black, demonstrated this cultural sexual objectification. Rather than focus on Cox’s activism, or her character on the show, or any of the other successes and trials in her life, Couric focused on her genitalia, in an effort, she claimed to “educate” people. Cox’s response was wonderful. “By focussing on bodies,” she said, “we don’t focus on the lives realities of [the] oppression and discrimination of transgendered people.”

And it’s not just sexual orientation and gender identity that raise the cultural eyebrows when it comes to sex. Women who have had an abortion, or who are raped, are in a constant battle against a society that objectifies them by erroneously labeling them as “promiscious” or suggesting that they must have been “asking for it”. It wasn’t long ago that divorced women were thought to be promiscuous simply by nature of not being in a marriage anymore. Single women who chose to have children without being married had their sex lives placed under intense public scrutiny as recently as the early 90s, when the TV show character Murphy Brown stirred up a controversy when she decided to have and raise her child alone after the biological dad decided it was too much trouble.

By focusing on bodies – on biological plumbing, or on how people have sex or whom they have it with, we dehumanize people and disregard their inherent worth and dignity. And the reality is, for the most part, it is none of our business! Consensual, informed, and welcomed relationships between adults should not matter to anyone else.

 



Part 2: Secrets

Alcoholics Anonymous has a saying: “”You’re only as sick as your secrets.” And they are so right. Though decorum and civilization require a certain amount of privacy – we certainly don’t need to share everything with one another – there are some truths that if we keep them bottled up inside become like a poison, eating away at us and making us sick emotionally, spiritually and even physically. Yet out of shame, or because of a family rule, there are things in many households and families that get permanently swept under the rug and that you just are not allowed to talk about. The same is true for churches.

Ten years ago, this congregation effectively institutionalized a secret. And it has eaten away at us ever since.

On April 24, 2005, First Unitarian Church called a special congregational meeting. This was not the annual meeting, but a separate meeting that was called to discuss and vote on one particular motion.

The motion had several parts:

  • first, that the congregation would not be affiliated with polyamory or any group chiefly concerned with polyamory;
  • second, that no group at the church that is “chiefly concerned” with polyamory would be allowed to become a special interest or affiliate group, a status that gave groups certain privileges;
  • third, that no group with polyamory as its chief concern would be allowed to use First Unitarian Church in its name or in any way “otherwise purport to be affiliated with the church.”; and
  • finally, no such group would be permitted to advertise itself or its meetings through newsletters, orders of service, distribution of materials, bulletin boards, brochure racks, etc.

This motion overturned existing Board AND Council decisions that were in contradiction with the above.

There were 141 people at this special meeting, and they narrowly ruled in favor of passing the motion. Though it was never in the text of the motion, this meeting became known, and talked about in shorthand, as the day it was decided that we just don’t talk about polyamory. It was the day we swept the elephant in the room under the rug.

How did we get to that point?

First, a primer on what polyamory is. Polyamory is the potential for romantically loving more than one person at a time. Another term for it is “responsible non-monogamy”. Polyamory is a general term covering a wide variety of relationship styles, including polyfidelity (which means group marriage), open marriage, expanded family system, intimate network, and some kinds of intentional community. It means having the potential for a serious, intimate, stable, affectionate bond with more than one person.

Polyamory is not cheating, as honesty and forthrightness are crucial between all partners. And it is not swinging. Swinging is an expression of recreational sex, whereas polyamory is about relationships and sharing lives together.

If you would like more information about what polyamory is, there are brochures about it on the table by the doors as you head out. (readers: I invite you to check out the UUPA website).

So how did we get to the point where the church took such an adamant stance which, in retrospect seems to be not so much on the side of love, certainly not on the side of multiple loves? How did we get there? It all started about 8 years before that meeting in 2005. At that time, eighteen years ago now, the first discussion about polyamory was had at the church in an adult religious education class. I wasn’t there, but I would guess that the conversation had something to do with what polyamory is about, and how it is about a lot more than sex.

Three years later, in 2000, upon request, the Board of Trustees approved the creation of a local UU’s for Polyamory Awareness (UUPA) group. Bless that board – they certainly had NO idea what they were getting into. This was back in the time when we had announcements before the service, and so the first UUPA group meeting was announced, and the group meeting apparently went well. But people immediately complained to the Board, enough so that the Board asked UUPA to not make announcements anymore – they didn’t revoke UUPA’s group privileges at that time, but began to set boundaries on what the group could do. UUPA protested the restrictions, which were eventually lifted.

Within 3 months, a special Board meting was held just to discuss the polyamory group. At this time, the previous restrictions, plus some more, were put in place. Primarily, these restrictions had to do with what the group could call themselves and how they could publicize their meetings. Meanwhile, the minister was on his way out, and really didn’t want to deal with this issue in his final months. Remember, this is 2000, five years before the congregational meeting of April 2005.

In March of 2001, there was the first all-church meeting about the issue. Discussion continued, an interim minister was hired in the summer and in November 2001, the Board voted to designate UUPA as an outside group, which would disallow certain privileges such as publication and room usage. By March of 2002, however, the poly group was being asked not to use either a chalice logo OR the name of the church on their brochures and publicity. UUPA was tenacious, though, and would not let the matter drop.

In August of 2002, the new settled minister started, and in March of 2003 he told a representative of the poly group that polyamory was not a problem for the church, and that he would not discuss either polyamory or UUPA anymore. But by June 2003 he had recanted and announced that the problem was killing the church.

September of 2003 had another special congregational meeting on the topic. The next day, the Council, the programming arm of church governance, denied UUPA’s application for special interest group status, but they invited UUPA to reapply after a year. Which UUPA did. In November of 2004, the Council decided to postpone the decision on granting special interest group status to UUPA until June 2005, at the annual congregational meeting.

UUPA appealed the Council’s postponement to the Board. The Board chose not to rule, but in January 2005 the Council reopened the discussion. They surveyed the congregation on their opinions, and got mixed messages. In February 2005, the Council approved granting UUPA special interest group status. Within a month, there was a congregational petition to call the April 24 special congregational meeting.

During those years of controversy, there were a range of concerns expressed about why there should not be a polyamory group at First U. There was concern that the church would get to be known as “The poly church” in the larger community, which some felt would sacrifice 175 years of built up social capital in the community.

There were concerns expressed about the children – what would it be teaching or modeling to them? Would the children be at risk of predatory behaviors from the poly folks?

There were arguments that the church was not in the business of sanctioning lifestyle choices. And there were concerns that more of “those people” would show up at the church.

Perhaps these arguments sound familiar to you. Many of them are the arguments that were made against embracing GLBT people in our congregations many years ago. (FYI: I am using the abbreviations from the time period, not the currently accepted alphabetic string that indicates people on sexual orientation & gender identity spectrum.) And, indeed, they are the arguments that were made against incorporating the Pagans into our churches many years ago.

These arguments don’t come from facts. Neither gay men, pagans, nor poly people have any higher incidence or predatory behavior towards children! And, frankly, we sanction lifestyle choices all the time, though usually they’re the lifestyle choices that are already sanctioned by our larger culture and so don’t stand out.

Instead of a place of facts, these arguments come from a place of fear: fear of safety, and fear of loss of prestige. And, really, First Unitarian had good reason to fear, particularly around issues that connect, even peripherally, to sex. We have some troublesome history.

In 2000, it had not been long since the youth group had been disbanded due to sexual encounters and drug use on church premises. Many in the congregation could still remember a minister who engaged in what today would be considered sexual misconduct with a congregant. The 70’s era free-love key swapping that swept through Unitarian Universalist communities landed here as well, and caused harm to several marriages. Divorce was thought of as “catchy” as people saw their friends ending long-term marriages and were afraid it would happen to them, much like some people today are concerned that same-sex marriage will somehow hurt traditional marriage. Fear is not always rational.

And the church was no stranger to conflict: there had been intense debate around ultimately deciding not to join the Sanctuary movement in the 80s, which would have provided safe-haven for Central American refugees fleeing civil conflict. Plus there was the fire in 1985, which in church life was just yesterday to those in 2000 – we now pride ourselves on staying downtown but many didn’t agree and left the church over the decision, or over the decision to worship in the West End while the church was rebuilt. And I’ve heard several times how difficult the rebuilding process was.

Add to these factors a lack of trust in the congregational lay leadership, 3 ministers (none of whom handled this well), and a push to grow, grow, grow because congregations during this time were told that if they were not growing then they were not healthy or, even, worthwhile.

Combine all these factors and you get a powder-keg that was ready to explode. It almost didn’t matter what the issue was. Meanwhile, polyamorists were starting to come out all over the Unitarian Universalist Association, with some of the leaders being from this congregation. Across the country, UUs were having a hard time discussing polyamory because we were afraid. We were afraid we would lose prestige. We were afraid what it would mean in regards to our firm stance on sexual orientation and gender identity justice. We were afraid that “they” would take over.

And so we sexually objectified practitioners of polyamory – we focused on who was sleeping with whom, or what the sexual logistics and mechanics of their relationships were. Here at First U, there were even multiple incidences of different poly women being sexually objectified by the male minister. We sexually objectified polyamorists, rather than focus on whether their relationships were consensual, informed, and welcomed covenants between adults.

There was almost no way that the church could have handled it well. Let me say that again: given all these factors, there was almost no possible way that the church could have handled this situation well. And we didn’t. I don’t say this to shame those of you who lived through this era, I say this with love and deep compassion, knowing I truly cannot comprehend how tumultuous and painful the time was.

After five years of intense conflict in which everyone was on a side (even those who purported to take no side), the congregation was exhausted. In many ways, the congregation needed to pass the resolution 10 years ago just to move on – it was getting nowhere. The church was being ripped apart.

And what was the result of the resolution? We effectively institutionalized a secret that would slowly poison us over a decade. The problem with a “keep the peace no matter what” attitude in the wake of the congregational meeting was that it forced people to leave quietly rather than stay and continue the hard work of community. Many people on both sides of the issue left the church. As I recently listened to the tape recording of the meeting, I was struck by how I’ve never met approximately half the people who spoke, and I arrived only 4 years after the meeting.

At least 3 board presidents left the church right after their tenure, as well as many others in leadership. A large number of those who left the church were gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender folks, who heard the poly people being talked about as “those people” – an othering phrase that had been used on them in the recent past.

Interweave, the GLBT group at the time, absorbed the poly folks. Meeting twice a month, it would offer a GLBT-focused program one week, and then a poly -focused program the next time. Some of the poly folks stayed. Most left.

Four years and two more interim ministers later, and I arrived in 2009. The poly conflict was all throughout this congregation’s materials. My first reaction when reading the information about this congregation was, honestly, pity – y’all seemed so down on yourselves. But the poly issue didn’t scare me, because I had written my thesis in seminary about it. Some friends of mine had asked me to solemnize the union of the three of them and I’d had to do some heavy thinking about whether or not I would. In my research, I learned that the institution of marriage had changed throughout human eons, and in fact was still changing. Who was I, I decided, to judge the rightness or wrongness of a consensual, informed, welcomed relationship? I realized my friends came to me, knowing that their union was far outside the norm, wanting someone to uplift them, to see them, to support them. Don’t we all want our love of another person to be honored by our community?

elephant under the rugSo I was not afraid to become your minister. And pity rapidly changed to deep love and appreciation for the many, many wonderful things here. And over the past 5.5 years we have done much, so much, healing together. The congregation is in a healthy enough place that on this, the anniversary of that special congregational meeting, it is time to address the elephant that we swept under the rug ten years ago.

 



Part 3: Power

For the past 10 years, there’s been an elephant under the rug. No, there are no official sanctions against talking about polyamory, but the unofficial line is that we don’t do it much. Those of you who are newer probably had no idea that there was such a time of intense conflict at the congregation not that long ago, though I would guess you might have suspected something.

Some of you, undoubtedly, wonder why I am bringing it up now. We settled that 10 years ago, right?

Not really. We settled it for the short term, but that resolution was not one that contributes to the longterm health of a congregation.

That resolution prevents us from being a truly sexually healthy congregation because it does not permit exploration of the whole range of healthy relationship possibilities. We offer OWL to the whole spectrum of ages here because we want to be a sexually healthy congregation.

We also want, need, to be able to talk about hard stuff, to take a stand on difficult issues, but we can’t do that if we can’t talk about this. We cannot claim our power in all areas of life if some areas are considered off limits.

And we need to recognize that there are steadfast, loyal, loving poly people and their allies within this church who are still suffering from the pain this controversy caused them personally. These are people who have been and are leaders in our congregation, who are valued members, who are raising their children here and their grandchildren. Do we tell beloved members of this community that they can only bring part of themselves here?

We do not. In fact, on our order of service each week we proclaim that we are a welcoming congregation, and this means that we “embrace all persons equally, no matter their sexual or affectional orientation, gender identity or expression, age, race, ethnicity, neurodiversity, social or economic class, education level, family structure or abilities.” We proclaim that we welcome all to participate fully and openly in our congregational life. This means you should not be afraid to bring your whole self, and your whole family (no matter the configuration) for fear of how you might be treated or objectified.

Being welcoming also means the ability to connect with others who are in a similar situation so that you can support and accept one another and encourage each other in your spiritual growth and faith development, whether that would be a group for widows, a group for alzheimer caregivers, a UUPA group, or a group for parents of autistic children.

I am so proud of this current Board of Trustees, who just passed a policy removing all special interest group and other group designations. From now on, anyone who wants to start a group or organization simply will need to justify how the group fits into the congregation’s mission. If that is done successfully, the group will have full access to the congregation’s resources. You can check out the new policy in the members section of our website.

And there is more that we can do to continue to move forward into health. Our Ministry Theme for this month is Freedom. Science fiction novelist and screenwriter David Gerrold says that if we want to be free, we need to understand that “freedom is not about being comfortable. It’s about seizing and using opportunities, and using them responsibly. Freedom is not comfort” he says, “It’s commitment. Commitment to the willingness to be uncomfortable.” As we engage in a free and responsible search for truth and meaning in this congregation, there will be times when we are uncomfortable. This is the difficult work of building the beloved community. It is hard, but it is worth it.

In the next few weeks and months, we will have ample opportunity to explore the discomfort that freedom brings, the discomfort that being witnesses for progressive faith brings. We will be talking about, and taking action, on a lot of things that there are disagreement around:

This fall, we are engaging in a renewal of our Welcoming Congregation certification. This is something that has not been undertaken in over 10 years, even though it is supposed to happen every five years. Much has changed in society since the last time we went through this process – I have no doubt that there will be much that makes us uncomfortable!

Before even this fall, though, there is much to challenge us. Two weeks from now, we will be talking about welcoming people of all genders, and what that looks like in regards to creating all gender bathrooms.

This spring, we are talking about joining a social justice organization that is currently Christian and that will require us to partner in areas of agreement with other local congregations with which we perhaps have much disagreement.

We will also be talking about what it would mean to hang a BlackLivesMatter sign on our building and how we would know that the time had arrived when we could take it down.

I suggest that we might even choose to step into the discomfort, to step into right relations with one another, by, at our annual meeting on June 7, repealing the motion made 10 years ago on that fateful day in 2005.

I do not believe we can talk about these issues with integrity and good faith until we acknowledge our history and commit to holding each other in love and care.

I ask this of you in the coming weeks. First, trust your leadership. They are, frankly, amazing. Each of them have educated themselves on the issues they are raising, they have done the internal work necessary to understand the nuances involved. They don’t press us into these areas just out of intellectual conviction but out of a desire to truly live our mission and to honor the interdependent web of which we are all a part.

Second, I ask that you recognize that negotiating our various differences is an essential part of building community. When we are confronted with someone or something with which we disagree, I ask that we first remember that we all want what is best for this congregation. I ask that we look for solutions rather than focussing on the problem – for instance, if this were ten years ago I would suggest that, rather than focussing on what imagined harm a UUPA group might cause the congregation, we recognize that the polyamorous folks in our congregation would like to have a group that explores how their faith is expressed through their family structure and focus on ways to make that happen.

I also ask that we make sure that this issue is not personalized. Each of us is so much more than one thing: I am a minister, a mother, a spouse, a daughter, a friend, a colleague, and so much more. We are each more than our views about polyamory, or about any other individual issue.

And. And I know this is hard. And I know I am asking so much of you. But you are ready. I know you are. You are such a healthy, vibrant, loving congregation. You want to be a force for good in the world and in the community. You want to be welcoming. You want to be healthy. You want to be whole.

For ten years, we have been walking around the elephant that was swept under the carpet. It is time to no longer be held back by the pain in the past, to move forward in loving covenant with one another, and to claim our power together and in the larger community. May it be so. Blessed be.

removing barriers through getting creative about finances.

10 Apr

money-tree-images-Image-Money-Tree-IllustrationAs we explore what it looks like to remove barriers to participation in brick & mortar congregations in a changing religious landscape, one can’t help but wonder about money. At this point, many of you are probably wondering how on earth we are supposed to do all these things. With the economic downturn finally resolving, congregations are often still struggling to make ends meet.

Some congregations have instituted a fee for service payment method, where activities are broken down and participants pay for them separately. This might look like having fees to participate in RE classes, book groups, CUUPS rituals, possibly even worship. The trouble with this method is that it puts up barriers to participation instead of removing them. Instead, I believe it is time for congregations to get creative.

One way congregations can remove barriers to participation around money is to utilize technology more effectively. This might look like having hardware, such as the Square, available to accept credit cards on site at the church. It might also look like enabling online donations during the service, either though a sharing a website, or through having a QR code on a card in the pew or on the order of service that can quickly take someone to your online donation page (remember, younger people don’t carry checkbooks, or cash!).

No discussion of funding would be complete without a mention of crowd funding. Crowd funding is the use of the internet to attract funding for commercial and nonprofit projects from countless individuals. You have probably donated to some crowd-funding projects through GoFundMe, KickStarter, IndieGoGo or one of the other platforms. And we have our own special Unitarian Universalist crowd-funding platform now: Faithify. From youth group trips, to social justice workshops, to building additions, video projects, and much more, thousands upon thousands of dollars have been donated through Faithify for specifically Unitarian Universalist projects.

Though congregations will likely still rely on your annual pledge as the primary means of support, I also believe we will begin to see more congregations applying for more traditional grants. There are thousands upon thousands of dollars available out there that congregations could be plugging into: from making our building more accessible to funding a new staff position, to a variety of social service and social justice projects that congregations could be taking advantage of. These grants are available from local organizations, state and national organizations, and, if a congregation has been a UUA Fair Share Congregation for two years, from district/regional chalice lighter grants or from the Unitarian Universalist Funding Program. Grant applications are particularly appealing to deciding bodies when congregations partner with other area organizations, including other local congregations.

sharingWhich leads to another way to do more with less: sharing resources with other congregations. It may be that you could share a staff position, such as a bookkeeper or a membership coordinator, with a nearby congregation. Or maybe share a webmaster with a congregation in a different state! Not only does this help lighten the load on an individual congregation, it creates jobs that are more likely to provide both benefits and a livable wage – making the position more appealing to a larger array of candidates!

Congregations need to start getting creative when it comes to finances. The money is out there for compelling projects, it is just a matter of tapping into it.

removing barriers through effectively utilizing technology.

9 Apr

As we explore what it looks like to remove barriers to participation in brick & mortar congregations in a changing religious landscape, the utilization plays a very important role, from streaming services to having welcome videos on their websites, to projecting video, presentations, having google hangouts in the service, and more, during the service. Having a podcast or video-cast of the service allows people to access it whenever it works for their schedule.

technology2But integrating technology into the life of a congregation is not limited to Sunday mornings. Video conferencing can be used for meetings so that people who have difficulty driving at night, or have children at home they need to be with, can participate from the comfort of their own home. Google Docs and DropBox can also be used to share work amongst groups of people – I know they have revolutionized how we get work done at my congregation! For instance, we have a shared google spreadsheet for maintaining the Sunday Services schedule which lists everyone who is involved in any capacity in making each service happen: from speaker to chalice lighter to ushers to board host, sound booth, tech deck and more. We also use DropBox for group editing of the presentations that get shown during the service on Sunday morning. This way, the work is shared amongst a number of people, cutting huge jobs down into more bite-sized ones. We average about 110 adults on Sunday morning, so this is not something just for larger congregations!

It was not that long ago that congregations could get by without having a website, but that is absolutely not the case anymore. And a website is just the beginning. A congregation may have many more “likes” on Facebook or followers on Twitter than they do members – my congregation has 3x as many “likes” as the membership number, 6x as many “likes” as the number that shows up on Sunday morning. These are people whose lives the congregation touches in some capacity. Congregations need to be on social media, and they need to know how to use it. For instance, on social media information is processed differently than it is in print, or even in email. Chunks of data have to be smaller, discrete. They have to grab the viewer immediately with relevant details in case they don’t read past the first sentence. The use of imagery is important, too, not just because it will appeal to those of us who are more visually oriented but because the facebook algorithm will also show a post to more people if there is an image attached. The ubiquitous use of social media necessitates a shift in how we share information, as we maintain the old era ways of the newsletter and printed orders of service while moving to the new era ways of using social media.

Congregations can also use technology to see what people are interested in at the church or how people are finding the church. Using customer relationship management software like Constant Contact to distribute the newsletter and then tracking which links get clicked on and which don’t allows us to see who is reading the newsletter and what parts of it people are most interested in. Google analytics can track what search terms bring up a congregation’s website, as well as where the majority of the clicks come from. This is important data that can then be used when deciding what to promote, as well as how and where to spend advertising or marketing money. Which leads to the final changing aspect of congregational life I want to explore in this series: getting creative about finances.

removing barriers through transitioning away from a membership model.

8 Apr

As we explore what it looks like to remove barriers to participation in brick & mortar congregations in a changing religious landscape, we are seeing a shift in our dominant operating paradigm. In times past, a congregation would look at how many members it has as a measure of health and “success”. But with declining membership numbers, congregations are now shifting to looking instead at how the reimagine participation in the congregation.

The Old WayIn the old model, the vast majority of the congregation would worship together on Sunday morning. After a certain amount of time, visitors would become members, and then they would be invited to participate in the structure of the church by joining one committee or another. If someone came into the church via one of the church groups, such as a book-group or a CUUPS group or a meditation group, they would be encouraged to come to worship and eventually join the church. People who did not participate in the communal worship of the church frustrated leaders who wanted these people to “count” as members and to then support the church through their volunteer efforts and financial contributions.

The New WayThe new model turns this old way on its head. Instead of a pathway to membership, there is a new focus on multiple avenues of participation. Perhaps someone wants to come to a particular Adult Religious Education class, or they are interested in the book club. Or they want to volunteer for the soup kitchen or they turn out for the public witness march. These are people who may be involved in the church in several different ways but who may only rarely (if ever) show up at Sunday morning worship.

Until now, we would try to get these folks to come to worship, with the goal being to get on that pathway to membership. Today, we recognize that these ways of participating are valid and valuable as the church can (and should!) touch lives outside of worship as well as inside.

This new focus on multiple avenues of participation has an impact on how we do things: Faith development should not only happen in worship, it should happen at the church group level as well, whether that group is the soup-kitchen servers, the book group, an RE class, or beyond. Stewardship is the same – we can’t just “hit up” the people who are in worship but must approach the whole of the congregation.

Churches are removing barriers to participation by considering folks who engage in these other avenues and groups as community members because they are, whether or not they participate in worship or have formally signed the book. Besides, they may have very good reasons for not attending on Sunday morning. For instance, they may have to work! This leads to the issue I will discuss in the next post: utilizing technology effectively.

removing barriers through diversifying worship.

7 Apr

As we explore what it looks like to remove barriers to participation in brick & mortar congregations in a changing religious landscape, one question that quickly comes to mind centers on worship: In a world where people can easily find exhilarating TED talks, stirring UpWorthy videos, what does a congregation have to offer that makes worship unique?

People come to experience in community something that we cannot get by ourselves – whether it is joy of joining together in communal song, or the shared experience of reflecting on an inspiring sermon, or the struggle to understand how we should live knowing that we will die – whatever the reason, we come to experience something we cannot get by ourselves. Millennials, in particular, come to our congregations seeking authentic emotional connection. If a church is not giving the shared experience people crave, then the spiritual needs of the people are not being met.

To preparePeople of different professions around the world effective worship that meets today’s needs, it is important pay attention to vast array of people coming to us, knowing we are going to attempt to minister to someone who is walking in the door for the first time as well as to someone who has been coming for their whole life. We try to meet the needs of the person who has never sung a song communally before and really likes popular music, as well as the needs of the person who thirsts for more traditional hymnody. Utilizing Gardner’s multiple intelligences, we understand and try to meet the needs of the visual learner, the interpersonal learner, the intrapersonal learner, the linguistic learning, the bodily learner, the musical learner, the logical mathematical learner and more!

A challenge arises in congregations with only one worship service a week: creating an experience that can touch such diverse varieties of people in only one hour is difficult. This is why so many congregations have added a contemporary or innovative worship service to their offerings – to try to meet the needs of a greater variety of people. The Faith Communities Today study from 2010 indicated that having innovative worship is a marker of spiritual vitality in a congregation because it removes barriers to participation. But in 2010 only 3% of our Unitarian Universalist congregations reported having such a service!

There is another reason congregations are diversifying their worship portfolio- not only can a congregation offer different types of services, but they can offer them at different times of the week and through various formats. This allows a congregation to connect with those who are not able to attend a Sunday morning service. This diversification of worship allows the church to touch more lives effectively, which I will cover in the next blog.

removing barriers to participation in congregational life.

7 Apr

As Unitarian Universalists, we affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of every person. We accept one another and encourage each other on our spiritual journeys. These two statements combined mean that we strive to meet people where they are. Not where we wish they would be, not where we think they should be. It means meeting people in the lived reality of where they are.

The more we understand this, the more we realize that it is our calling to confront and seek to do away with whatever it is that prevents people from feeling as though they have a place at the table. This means intentionally looking at what accommodations a congregation can make to remove barriers to participation for all those who might find a home with us.

removing barriersThough we cannot, and should not, try to be all things to all people, through being intentional about our worship, through providing multiple avenues for participation in the life of the congregation, through the use of technology, and through thinking creatively about finances, congregations can remove barriers to participation and thus walk the talk on living our first principle (affirming and promoting the inherent worth and dignity of each person), our third principle (acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations) and other core values.

But what does this look like in practice, particularly in today’s changing congregational landscape? Traditional brick and mortar congregations are in transition. The previous era is behind us – the old ways of doing church no longer work the way they used to, with worship being the central function (sometimes the only function!) and committees populated by volunteers doing the brunt of the church work. People are busier than they have ever been. There are fewer families with only one spouse employed, leaving the other the freedom to be a professional volunteer. There are fewer people going to church than ever before (fewer than 20% of the US population on any given Sunday), and there as been a rise of what are called the “nones” – the people who claim to be spiritual but not affiliated with any religious tradition.

In the next four posts, I am going to examine what these changes might look like in practice in traditional congregations as we work to remove barriers to participation by:

Certainly, there is no way that I can summarize all the possibilities, but hopefully this is enough to get your creative juices flowing as you figure out how to navigate your congregation into a new era.

a feminist take on Easter.

5 Apr

Listen:

We probably all have at least one childhood memory where something happened that just didn’t fit with the world as we knew it. One such time for me was when I was in Sunday School, probably about 11 or 12 years old, and we were going around the table sharing how we wanted to serve God when we grew up. The boys pretty much all said they wanted to be pastors. The girls talked about teaching Sunday School. I was last, but I knew exactly what I was going to say. “I want to be a pastor!” I boldly declared. The Sunday School teacher, a woman with long brown hair, patted me gently on the shoulder and, with a sad smile, said “Honey, God doesn’t call women to be pastors. You can teach Sunday School, though.” And then we went on with whatever was left of the lesson. I don’t remember the topic at all – I do remember thinking that what she had told me made no sense whatsoever. My parents were telling me I could do or be anything I wanted. Free to be You and Me, right? Why would God put such a desire in my heart and then not allow me to fulfill it? It made no sense. (I must confess, when I am visiting my home town, I often have an urge to show show up at this church and say “Ha! Proved YOU wrong, didn’t I?”)

This congregation is not an outlier. There is a whole strain of Christianity in which women are told to be submissive to their husbands, who are to be the head of the household. Entire books from women, even, about how submitting to their husband provides them with more freedom than they would have otherwise, trying to explain how such submission does not make them less worthy than their husbands.

There are two primary places in the Bible that defenders of this belief system go to when trying to establish their authority: Genesis, and the writings of the apostle Paul. Holding all snark and commentary aside for a moment, here are some of their reasons:
Looking at Genesis, they say that man was created first, so therefore he is more important. Or they say that since Eve is the only creature not made from dust, but from Adam’s rib, this makes her inferior. They say that Adam has dominion over the creation that he named, and he named Eve so therefore has dominion over her as well. Or they point out that God never tells Eve not to eat from the forbidden tree – he tells Adam, so therefore Eve is not worthy of being spoken to by God. And it goes on, and on.

For a book written 3000 to 5000 years ago, Genesis has a large amount of influence on how our society models itself today. (Here in Kentucky, we only have to look at the popularity of the Creation Museum to know that!) It wasn’t until I was an adult that I learned that women actually do have the same number of ribs as men – I had learned in Sunday School that we have one less, which, when you think about it, makes NO sense at all since it would have been Adam who had one fewer ribs. Someone might have a completely different interpretation on some of these verse, but that is besides the point for these folks, who believe their interpretation is the only possible correct one.

The writings attributed to the apostle Paul are slight more contemporary, having been written close to the turn of the eras. In these letters, or epistles, Paul is writing to the new, struggling churches throughout the ancient kingdom to provide them with support, to give them direction, and to make corrections in how they are doing or interpreting things. It is from these letters that we get such gems as “For indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.” (1 Corinthians 11:9)

Or “But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet, for it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.” (1 Timothy 2:12-13 – not technically written by Paul but written in his name and style)

Or “As in all the churches of the holy one, women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate even as the law says. If they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church.” (1 Corinthians 14:33-35) Who knows what women are to do if they want to learn something and they are single or married to another woman!

Those who cherry pick such verses have a tendency of taking them totally out of context, and dismiss the places where Paul refers to women who were obviously holding leadership positions, such as Phoebe, Prisca, Mary and Junia. And cherry pickers often neglect to understand that Paul’s views reflect those of his time, and that if he were writing today it would probably be very different. In ancient Greece, women had very few rights. They were supposed to be submissive. In the Rome of Jesus’s time, women could be citizens but could not vote or hold office.

“Okay,” you might be saying, “I hear you, but we don’t believe all this. So what does it have to do with us?”

As Unitarian Universalists, we believe that people of all genders are equal, but even today, in the society in which we live, women are consistently and constantly not considered as worthy or as worthwhile as men. One does not have to look very far to find continuing evidence of the bias:

  • Women continue to earn only $0.78 on the dollar that men earn – even less than that for women of color.
  • Women are earning the majority of undergraduate and graduate degrees, while at the same time, women make up the majority of the poor in America.
  • There are 15 states that never ratified the Equal Rights Amendment, which means women technically don’t have equal rights under our Constitution.
  • Women fill more than half of the jobs in the U.S. economy but constitute fewer than 12% of working physicists and engineers, and that number is actually dropping as women are tired of the bias and prejudice they bump up against in these careers, such as the recent GamerGate controversy.

Of course it is not just science and technology in which women suffer from bias. South Carolina State Senator Katrina Shealy is the only woman in the 46-member chamber. When one of her colleagues made a crack (at a domestic violence event!) about how women should be “at home baking cookies” or “barefoot and pregnant,” not serving in the state legislature, she asked him where he “got off” in making making such remarks. “Well, you know God created man first,” her colleague replied. “Then he took the rib out of man to make woman. And you know, a rib is a lesser cut of meat.”

We may dismiss this state senator as one of the “bad eggs”*, but there are a lot of “bad eggs” out there that perpetuate the idea that women are “less than.” One only need search for “Women’s Rights Quotes Politicians” for an overwhelming example of men in power who share this worldview.

Though their quotes are more public than that of the average Joe, these men are products of their society. A society where men and boys are more likely to be called upon in a classroom. A society where men get more space in print and online journalism. A society where men are retweeted more than women on Twitter.

Then there is the interruption phenomenon. Women get interrupted more than men, and when men interrupt women, it is often to assert power. Sometimes, in the course of regular conversation, we interrupt the person we are talking with in order to be encouraging about what they’re saying. But a 1998 study showed men interrupt women frequently to assert dominance, and it happens even more often in mixed groups.**

We saw this recently on a panel discussion at the South by Southwest festival, where Google chairman Eric Schmidt continuously interrupted his former colleague, Megan Smith, who is now U.S. Chief Technology Officer. Toward the session’s end, an audience member’s question pointed to Schmidt’s tendency to interrupt and talk over Smith – and the question came from Google’s own Judith Williams, head of their Unconscious Bias program. She did her job that day, didn’t she?

Phenomena like this have given rise to the concept of “mansplaining”, wherein a man explains something to a woman, condescendingly and patronizingly, without regard to the possibility that the she might actually know more than the he does about the subject. Mansplaining exists because it is consistently reinforced to us that men’s words are more important than women’s. Going back to the story of Senator Shealy, she reports that her colleague seems to think that this is an ongoing joke between them. He has tried to mansplain away her feelings, saying that “We are just joking around”, despite the fact that she has repeatedly asked him to stop such derogatory comments.

Our society has internalized the inferiority of women based on a narrow interpretation of the Bible. But just as the Bible can be used to justify this mistreatment of women, so can we find ways to use the biblical stories to counter such mistreatment – and we can do it without cherry-picking individual verses that suit our perspective.

As we heard in the Moment for All ages, women in general, and Mary Magdalen in particular, had a powerful role to play in the Easter story. It is in this story, and in following the actions and words of Jesus, that we can find a counter to the verses used to justify the oppression of women.

All four of the gospels mention that Mary was present at the death of Jesus. She had been close to him in life – indeed was one of his disciples – and she remained faithful to him in death, staying by him. The gospel account in Matthew even goes so far as to say that the male disciples deserted Jesus and fled in fear for their lives. But Mary and the the women remained, standing as near as they dared, to the spot where the soldiers were carrying out the brutal execution.

When Jesus’s body was taken down from the cross, it was getting late on Friday. The Jewish Sabbath begins on Friday at sundown, and there are strict rules against touching a dead body on the sabbath. Mary witnessed that Jesus’s body was sealed inside the tomb, and she and the other women left to gather and prepar the spices they would need for a proper burial after the Sabbath.

Once the Sabbath was over, on Sunday morning, Mary went to the tomb and found that Jesus’ body was no longer there. She was the first to witness the empty tomb. Gazing upon it, Mary had a vision where an angel came to her and she understood that Jesus was no longer dead. When she went to tell the others apostles, the story says she saw and heard Jesus himself – she became the first person to witness his resurrection! I sincerely doubt Jesus would have appeared to someone whom he considered inferior. It is with good reason that teachers in the early Christian church called Mary ‘Apostle to the Apostles’, because in Greek “apostellein” means to “go and tell”, which is what Jesus told her to do. Mary has been one of the most revered figures in Christian history.

And yet. And yet in in his letter to the Corinthians where he recounts Jesus’ death and resurrection, Paul does not include Mary or any of the other women at the tomb among the witnesses to the Resurrection. According to Paul’s story, Jesus appeared to Cephas, and then to the twelve male disciples, then to 500 people, then to James, then to all the apostles. Mary Magdalen is not mentioned at all. Paul was writing to Greeks in Corinth, and sadly his letter reflects the culture of the Greeks, who viewed the testimony of women as unreliable. Perhaps we could consider Paul an early mansplainer!

Feminist JesusAs opposed to Paul, and many of those over time who have continued to use his words to justify the subjugation of women, I think Jesus would be wearing a “This is what a feminist looks like!” t-shirt, because the way that he treated women, in his life, death, and through the story of his resurrection, was revolutionary. Jesus, unlike the men of his generation and culture, taught that women were equal to men in the sight of God. Women could receive God’s forgiveness and grace. Women could be full participants in the kingdom of God. He also had women among his personal followers and closest confidants – Jesus offered full discipleship to women. These were revolutionary ideas at the time – many of his contemporaries, including his disciples, were shocked.

One can cherry pick verses from the Bible to justify just about any form of oppression – from slavery, to the subjugation of women, to oppression based on sexual orientation or gender identity. But the message to those who would follow Jesus is clear: women are not at all inferior to men, and, indeed, can be trusted to carry the most important news out into the world. What better counterpoint is there to those who would preach the submission of women than to ask: What would Jesus do? The Easter story makes it quite clear.


* Yes, bad Easter pun. Sorry, couldn’t resist!

** Two men shared with me separately after the service that they considered “humorously” interrupting me at this point, ala Kanye West. I am grateful they didn’t, but it would have just proven my point quite effectively, wouldn’t it have?

Direct Democracy and UUA “citizenship” – part 3

1 Apr

Friends,

My final (I think) post in a series on exploring what direct democracy might look like if we implemented it at the UUA is now available over on the Lively Tradition.

I am thinking it would be worthwhile to set up a few google hangouts on this topic, so if you are interested in having future conversations about this topic, please let me know!

Blessings!

Dawn

from Selma to #BlackLivesMatter

22 Mar

Listen here:

Though the song does have its detractors, when Glory won the award for Best Original Song at the Academy Awards last month, not many people were surprised.

When Legend and Common performed it during the award ceremony, they featured a replica of the Edmund Pettus Bridge – a bridge iconic for the events which occurred there fifty years ago and which are brilliantly captured in the movie Selma, for which the song was created.

Coretta Scott King,John Lewis,Fifty years ago yesterday, on March 21, 1965, Martin Luther King, Jr. led thousands across the Edmund Pettus Bridge on a march that spanned from Selma to Montgomery, AL. The governor of Alabama, George Wallace, would not provide protection for the marchers, so President Johnson sent in thousands of Army and National guard soldiers, FBI agents and federal marshals. On March 25, over 25,000 people entered Montgomery in a show of support for African-American citizens to be able to exercise their constitutional right to vote – a demonstration that led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act later that year.

The march was the culmination of events that started, really, before even the colonization of this country, but was brought to immediacy by the death of Jimmie Lee Jackson , in nearby Marion, AL. Jimmie 03Lee had been participating in a peaceful march for voting rights, when police attacked marchers. When his mother was being visciously beaten, he tried to get the state trooper to stop. Instead, the trooper shot Jackson in the stomach and began beating him in the head. Jackson’s death outraged the black community. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr, came into town and gave the eulogy for him, and local organizers decided to funnel that outrage into action.

The successful march of 50 years ago was actually the third attempt. The first attempt occurred on March 7. John Lewis led the gathered crowd across the bridge where they were met by state troopers 04who attacked them brutally with clubs and tear gas. When I was on the Living Legacy Pilgrimage a few years ago, a poignant moment for me was being on the bridge and listening to a woman describe how the marchers were chased down by police on horses, riding even up church stairs miles away hunting people down. The day became known as Bloody Sunday.

Martin Luther King, Jr, assessed the situation, came to Selma, and put out a call for clergy to come. 05On the 9th, he led another march, but as they got to the line of state troopers, King stopped and prayed, and then turned the marchers around. This became known as “Turn around Tuesday.” That evening, three white Unitarian ministers were attacked and beaten on the street by white segregationists. 06The Rev. James Reeb died of head injuries two days later. Again, King delivered a powerful eulogy for Reeb at the memorial service.

Between March 9 and March 21, King worked hard to get protection from the federal government for the marchers. Reeb’s death had shocked the nation in a way that Jackson’s had not, and so eventually President Johnson relented and provided the protection, which allowed the march to finally be successful.

Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Sasha Obama, Sasha Obama, Amelia Boynton Robinson, John LewisTwo weeks ago, on the 50th anniversary of Bloody Sunday, an estimated 80,000 people crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge. President Obama and his family were there, and he spoke at the event. “Fifty years from Bloody Sunday,” he said, “our march is not yet finished, but we’re getting closer.”

08There is a French proverb that says that the more things change, the more they remain the same. On the Friday before the commemorative march, Tony T. Robinson Jr.,  an unarmed 19-year-old black man was shot dead by a white police officer in Madison, Wisconsin, sparking protests.

09Earlier this week, Martese Johnson, a black University of Virginia student, was bloodied during an arrest near the campus. Johnson’s attorney relates that “Just before handcuffing him, police took Martese to the ground, striking his head on the pavement and causing him to bleed profusely from the gash on his head. ” The lawyer continued by listing the numerous leadership positions on campus that Johnson holds, ending his statement with “He has no criminal record.”

“He has no criminal record.” His lawyer had to share this with us, because time after time, for each story heard of a black man brutalized by police, white people sit around and look for excuses. “Oh, he was drinking” or “Oh, he had a criminal record” or “Oh, he was a drug addict.” because, apparently, these character flaws somehow make it okay for someone to be the victim of police brutality?

We see this in the death of Otis Byrd this week in Mississippi. He was found hanging by a tree, a bedsheet wrapped around his neck. Some reports indicate that a skull cap was pulled over his head, and that there was nothing nearby for him to stand before taking a suicidal step forward. The FBI is investigating and should know more in the coming days whether this was a lynching or a suicide, but in the meantime every report the news has made has been sure to share that Byrd was convicted in 1980 of murdering a woman and had served almost 26 years in prison before his release. Because, I guess, if he was lynched, then this would make it less horrible???!!!

10Kenny Wiley is the director of Religious Education at Prairie Unitarian Universalist Church in Colorado, and a senior editor of the UU World magazine. Writing in response to Johnson’s experience earlier this week, Wiley wrote on his facebook wall:

Over time the illusions of black respectability I grew up believing–that if I was smart enough, nice enough, nonthreatening enough, that nothing could go wrong–has been shattered.

In general, that’s a good thing. I needed to wake up to the racial realities of the present. But I need to say publicly that all this violence hurts. It hurts to know that, if any violence ever happened to me, the first question some would ask is what I did to deserve it.

Listening to a podcast just yesterday, I heard a mother talking about how she is teaching her 5 year old son how to properly pronounce certain words because she wants people to know he is human. She wants people to know that he is human! I have never, ever, not once had to worry about whether my children would be considered human. And I am betting that neither have most of you. But mothers of black sons do. Constantly.

The black experience in the United States may be better than it was 50 years ago, but it is still an extreme experience. The recent Department of Justice report on the situation in Ferguson, 11MO, where Michael Brown was killed in August, illustrates this numerically. With a population of only 21,000, 16,000 in people in Ferguson had outstanding arrest warrants. This means over ¾ of the population were wanted by police! 12Though African Americans represent only 66% of the population, police used force in their arrests much more often than in the case of other races. 85% of the people subject to a vehicle stop were African American, and 93% of all people arrested in Ferguson we African-American! Ferguson issued 9000 criminal arrest warrants, or one for every 2.3 citizens. For comparison purposes, Boston, with a population of over half a million, only issued 2,300 criminal arrest warrants, or one for every 280 citizens.
Now we can say that Ferguson is an anomoly, but with over 19,000 municipal governments in our country, “the chances that Ferguson happens to be the worst are extremely slim.

We know that it is not just police brutality from which blacks disproportionately suffer:

  • African Americans are incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of whites.
  • One in three black males born today can expect to spend time in prison during his lifetime.
  • 5 times as many Whites are using drugs as African Americans, yet African Americans are sent to prison for drug offenses at 10 times the rate of Whites.
  • African Americans serve virtually as much time in prison for a drug offense (58.7 months) as Next bullet whites do for a violent offense (61.7 months)!!
  • Every 28 hours a black man, woman, or child is murdered by police or vigilante law enforcement.

In The New Jim Crow, published in 2010, Michelle Alexander says:

If Martin Luther King Jr. is right that the arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice, a new movement will arise; and if civil rights organizations fail to keep up with the times, they will be pushed to the side as another generation of advocates comes to the fore. Hopefully the new generation will be led by those who know best the brutality of the new caste system—a group with greater vision, courage, and determination than the old guard can muster, trapped as they may be in an outdated paradigm.

Enter the Black Lives Matter movement. BLM-text-logo1-1024x116Thanks to social media, particularly Twitter, racially unjust events are being dragged from the shadows into the light of public scrutiny. Originally started as a twitter hashtag, the Black Lives Matter movement “was created in 2012 after Trayvon Martin’s murderer, George Zimmerman, was acquitted for his crime… Rooted in the experiences of Black people in this country who actively resist [their] de-humanization, #BlackLivesMatter is a call to action and a response to the virulent anti-Black racism that permeates our society.”

Today, Black Lives Matter is an organized movement “working for a world where Black lives are no longer systematically and intentionally targeted for demise.” They ask those of us who are non-black to stand with them in solidarity.

I know some of you have trouble with Black Lives Matter. To you, I gently, but firmly remind you: This is not your movement. As white people, we are being asked to be allies to a powerful claiming of black humanness. We are not being asked to lead. We are not being asked to weigh in. We are being asked to listen, to show up, to walk, to stand shoulder to shoulder, and to speak out against injustice when we encounter it.

Because, in this country, we have proven time and time again that black lives don’t matter as much as white lives. Because Jimme Lee Jackson’s death was not enough to bring the world to Selma, but James Reeb’s was.

And so we protest against those who act like Trayvon Martin’s life didn’t matter because he was wearing a hoodie and “acting suspicious”,

We protest against those who act like Michael Brown’s life didn’t matter because he did not obey the police officer or because, heaven forbid, he was walking down the middle of a street,

We protest against those who act like Tamir Rice’s life didn’t matter because he shouldn’t have been playing with a toy in a playground (??!!)

We protest against those who act like a black life only matters if they have never committed a crime, speak well, are educated, and whatever other new bar gets set that denies their inherent worth and dignity.

We protest against all those who act like black lives don’t matter. We say no: All lives matter, and because of this, black lives matter, too. We make it explicit, so that there can be no confusion.

MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR, sitting in the Jefferson County Jail, in Birmingham, Alabama, 11/3/67. Everett/CSU Archives.In 1963, Martin Luther King sat in the Birmingham, Alabama jail and wrote a famous letter. He was not allowed pieces of paper, so we wrote it on scraps, on whatever he could find. A part of that letter reads:

I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.”

As white people, if we sit still and nitpick the name of perhaps the most important movement in our country right now, or, even worse, if we counter it by saying we should instead hang a banner that says “All lives matter” we become the white moderate over whom King lamented. We effectively would be paternalistically saying “We know better than you what you should name yourself.” We would be acting as white supremacists.

As white people, if we are not stepping up in white society to challenge racism and racial prejudice when we see it, we are, by defacto, agreeing with the status quo rather than challenging it and are aligning ourselves with white supremacists.

As white people, if we are waiting for Black people to tell us it is okay or to give us clear instructions, “The reality is, Black people have been calling on whites to step up for decades.” As Unitarian Universalist author of Towards Collective Liberation and recent White Privilege Conference speaker Chris Crass wrote recently on his facebook page: “In all my years of working alongside Black organizers and activists, I’ve never heard anyone say, ‘we’ve got too many white people fighting racism’.”

This is why we have our new Black Lives Matter candle at First Unitarian Church.  This is why we are talking about replacing our “Civil Marriage is a Civil Right” banner with a #BlackLivesMatter banner when the Supreme Court hopefully legalizes same-sex marriage this summer: Because it is, and will be, a symbol of our humility. Of our willingness to listen. Of our willingness to follow. Of our willingness to stand in solidarity. Of our willingness to speak out, and lend our bodies to the cause of justice.

Much has changed in fifty years, though much has remained the same.

In his concluding remarks two weeks ago at the base of the Edmund Pettus Bridge, President Obama reminded us that what happened fifty years ago proved “that love and hope can conquer hate…that each successive generation can look upon our imperfections and decide that it is in our power to remake this nation to more closely align with our highest ideals…We know the march is not yet over,” he said, “We know the race is not yet won. We know that reaching that blessed destination where we are judged, all of us, by the content of our character requires admitting as much, facing up to the truth…Fifty years…our march is not yet finished, but we’re getting closer.”

Hard fought inch by hard fought inch, we are getting closer. It isn’t easy. It isn’t pretty. In fact it is pretty messy. We will fall short in this work. We will fail at times. And we will break each others hearts over and over again. But we know that if we remain in the struggle, this is what enables us to grow. May we not have to wait another 50 years to get to the glory.

forgiveness.

15 Mar

A twist on a twist on an old Zen Buddhist story…

One day, as a mother and her teenaged son were traveling through the countryside, they came to a river where the bridge had washed out. There they found an old woman, restlessly pacing the bank.

img-rivers-mountainriver-russia

“Good day, madam!” the son called out. “Do you need any help?”

“Yes!” the old woman replied impatiently. “The bridge has washed out and I am needed immediately on the other side.”

“I am familiar with this river,” the mother shared. “It is not more than chest deep at the deepest spot. Perhaps my son and I can carry you across.”

“Well, lets hurry up and get on with it then!” the old woman said.

And so the mother and son decided that the son would start with carrying the old woman’s things and the mother would give the old woman a piggy-back ride across the river. They got the old woman onto the mother’s back and set across the river.

The water was cool but the current was not too swift as the threesome crossed. However, as they got towards the middle, the old woman shrieked out “My feet are getting wet! Carry me higher! My feet are getting wet!”

So there in the middle of the river, the son and the mother put the old woman upon his shoulders. But the old woman wasn’t stable there, so the mother had to brace and support her from the back. They continued on.

The old woman squirmed and squirmed, moaning about her wet feet. As she squirmed, she broke wind*, loudly and quite stinkily, into the mother’s face and the son’s neck.

Finally, they arrived at the other side of the river. The mother and son put the old woman down.

“About time!” she exclaimed as she grabbed her things, and she stomped off down the road without a backward glance.

The mother and son were glad that they were traveling in the opposite direction, and they continued upon their journey.

Before long, the son could not keep it in any longer. “The nerve of that old woman! She treated us like cattle, and then without even a ‘thank you’! I can’t believe how rude some people are.”

The mother nodded and agreed that the woman had been something.

As they continued, the son brought the old woman up again, and again. Each time, his blood pressure rose and he got more and more angry. His mother, however, didn’t seem to bothered by the experience at all. Finally, he couldn’t stand her lack of concern. “It was YOUR face she tooted* into! How can you be so nonchalant?” he demanded.

“Dear son, I forgave the old woman and put her down miles ago. You seem to still be carrying her.”

 


* When this was originally posted, it included the word “fart” in place of these euphemisms. However, it was quickly pointed out to me that for some people, that word is the “f-word” that should take its place with the other seven dirty words. I had no idea!   In my family, growing up and today, the word “fart” is as innocuous as its gas passing cousin “burp”.  However, in deference to those who find the word “fart” to be highly offensive, I have edited the story while maintaining, I believe, the impact. 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 77 other followers

%d bloggers like this: