A Unitarian Universalist View of Prayer

by Posted in Audio available, Guest Speakers, Nell Newton, Sermons

Nell Newton

November 28, 2010

Do you pray? Really?

Is there “something” you do – almost automatically – in certain situations?

I mean, outside of the times, when midway through our service we are invited to “join in an attitude of prayer” and someone reads something worthy of pondering. Do you really pray? Or do you just adopt an attitude?

If you do pray, would you admit it to anyone else — to the person sitting next to you in these pews? Would you tell me?

Our practice has no fixed liturgy of prayer. We have no cannon, no formal recitation of holy words to use in times of turmoil to calm our hearts, or focus our thoughts. If you walk into any Unitarian or Universalist church in North America, you will not hear the same words spoken in the same way at the same part of a service. We have no shared doxology for giving thanks or acknowledging blessings. We have freed ourselves from any requirements that would dictate how and when, or even IF we should pray. And, for the most part we seem to be getting along okay.

In fact, some of us are probably pretty glad to be done with certain prayers. (Our father who art in heaven… hmmmm…, lift up his countenance… uh hunh… , and it is in dying that we…. hmmmm….) It well might have been in the middle of a standard prayer that you stumbled, and were caught up short when you realized I Cannot Say That And Mean It.

So what DO we say?

Maybe we don’t. Maybe prayer isn’t a part of your life. Maybe, you are a pragmatic person like my Aunt Ruth. Ruth lives outside a small town in southern Michigan. While her family is not particularly religious, plenty of her neighbors attend the many Christian churches. One day, while fixing supper for her family, Ruth collapsed on the kitchen floor in an epileptic seizure. It was a one-time thing, it never happened again. But it meant countless trips to medical specialists, and the inconvenience of losing her drivers license for a whole year. After the initial scare, she heard from too many members of the community “Oh Ruth, we’re praying for you.” It wore on her patience. She told me “I don’t want their damn prayers – I want someone to help me pick up my kids from school and take me grocery shopping!” Like I said, she is a pragmatic woman.

At its worst, “We’re praying for you” carries a whiff of condescension. As if the speaker can plainly see from your sorry condition, that your own prayers have been insufficient, so they’ll lend you some of theirs.

Perhaps that is why UU’s tend to shy away from that particular exchange.

From the get-go, that type of prayer is beseeching and calling upon a god for intervention or intercession. Could you lend me a hand down here? In its most immature, prayer is wishing – wishing for a puppy, a sparkly pony, a good grade on the test. Up one level comes the bargaining – “I’ll give up cussing and taking your name in vain if only you’ll…” And many of the wordiest of prayers amount to flattery: “Oh all powerful and merciful god…” The speaker is but a humble servant buttering up a vain and capricious deity. I’ve had some bosses like that, and, for me, such a character is not a god worth serving.

So we’ve grown up and we’re past the wheedling and pleading prayers. We’re not waiting for god to bring about changes we’re not ready to make for ourselves. We know better than to bargain with the universe. If we are going to make a personal connection to a greater power, it better be one we respect. And for several of us, god simply does not fit into a deity-box. And that’s where it gets a little complicated… To what address should we send such messages?

And what do we say – almost reflexively, after the first gasp of sadness follows bad news? What do we say when someone has had a loss – a death – and there is nothing one can do. And yet there is the wish to affirm for that person’s well-being and the longing to offer healing. These are the times when prayer would be a traditional response. What do we say when our heart is pained with sympathy? Do you have prayers to offer? Would you consider them of any value to offer?

I’ll stop asking you questions and quickly tell you straight up. I do pray. And it is a physical and quiet practice with almost no words – only names. Each day I pray specifically for a family I know. Earlier this year Jim died from a brain tumor. He left behind his wife and teenage sons who now must reconstruct their lives without him. Each day I still my body, clear my head, and think of each one of them completely, and open my heart to hold them all. Do they know about this? No. Should they? No. Do my prayers have any effect upon them? Honestly, that’s not the point. But this action keeps them present in my life, and makes it easier for me to pick up the phone, invite them over to dinner, offer to pick the kids up from music lessons, and be of some real use.

Frankly, the efficacy of prayer has yet to be proven definitively. There have been assorted studies that mostly show the placebo effect is alive and well. Many have tried to measure change in patient outcome following intercessionary prayer, and when the double-blind data is reviewed, prayer does not seem to improve the sick people who are prayed for.

But like so many studies, I wonder if the researchers were measuring the right part of the process. Perhaps, rather than measure the outcome of the people prayed for, perhaps we should measure the outcome of the people who are praying for someone else. Or we might examine the outcome of the family members who know their loved one received prayers.

Reverend Ed Brock told me how upon the death of his wife’s mother their family received many kindnesses from friends. The most unusual was a special gift made by two nuns they know professionally. They sent a card that said, in effect, we have made a gift to a convent in upstate New York and for a year the sisters in this convent will give payers for your family.

There was nothing in the note suggesting a wish for conversion, or that the prayers would produce any specific outcome. But to Ed and Alphise it seemed like and felt like an act of love. The idea that out there, amid the crazy frenzy of society, a group of people somewhere were simply mentioning her name daily — that idea was powerful. It wasn’t the potential supernatural dimension, but the caring dimension that touched them.

There is the other type of common prayer – the act of giving thanks. As Meister Eckhart explained “If the only prayer you ever say in your whole life is “thank you,” that would suffice.”

My favorite instruction came from my Korean martial arts master who was raised in a Buddhist temple. In his broken English, he scolded us: “Before you eat the pig, thank the pig! Because, if they could, the pig’s family would sue you!!”

As UU’s we’re a bit more comfortable here. Giving thanks doesn’t presume that we’re flawed, or helpless, just appreciative and observant. And we can be munificent in our thanks to the animal, the farmer, the cook!

In stopping to give thanks, we allow ourselves a moment to experience beauty and bounty more fully. Who wouldn’t want to spend time in this type of prayer? But do we – other than for formal occasions? Do you offer thanks over the morning’s oatmeal or the leftovers eaten at your desk? Have your kids ever seen you pause at breakfast on Tuesday and say “thank you” before the fork touches the food? What would that be like? Are you really up for three-squares of thankfulness every day?

Years ago, I worked as the Kitchen Manager and cook at a Quaker residential house on Beacon Hill in Boston. It was the Quaker custom of that community to have a good solid minute of silence before we ate our evening meal. There was nothing structured and no one led us with instructions or guidance through that silence. As the cook, it was generally the first time I had sat down in 6 hours and the first few times, if god spoke to me it was through bone-deep fatigue and if I gave thanks it was for the chair under my butt. But in time, I found myself placing a final blessing upon the food. It had passed through my hands, and was about to be received by people (who were grateful that they had not had to cook), and who would use the energy it gave them to study medicine, choreograph new dances, arrange flowers, build houses, and change their world. Eventually I found whole afternoons of chopping onions, crimping pie crusts, washing pots became an extended action of prayer. Living in an intentional community can do that sort of thing to an impressionable young person.

However, these days, I’m like most folks, hurrying to fix dinner, with NPR telling me about the horrible state of the world. I snap off the radio and fling the food at my tired and surly family who generally do not bother to thank me, the pig, the farmer, or anyone else. It is not ideal, but at least we have a place to work up from…

Just as many UUs have started to reclaim the language of god-talk, some of us are starting to reclaim prayer on our own terms. Perhaps there was a baby in that bathwater. But to rescue it we’ll have to do more than simply deconstruct or demythologize the practice. In short, to understand it, we’ll have to do it.

One splendid Unitarian Universalist woman I know set out to develop her own ritual of prayer and tied it to her every day. She turned some of her daily actions into sacred rituals. Each morning, first thing, she scoops up a handful of birdseed and steps out onto her patio. She scatters the seed in a small mandala marking the four directions and recites a scrap of a Navajo prayer “There is beauty before me, there is beauty behind me.” She fills in her circle with peanuts for the blue jays, and pauses just long enough to feel connected with nature. Then, every evening, after the dishes are done, and the dog is walked, she stops and simply gives thanks for her guardians who have helped her that day. She calls for blessings on her children and grandchildren. She calls for blessings upon her animal companions and asks that the presence of love be with people she knows who are having troubles in their lives. This is simply what she does.

I came to prayer sideways – through meditation. They aren’t the same thing, but they improve one another. In meditation, a person looks inward to consider their actions and find where they might be wanting. Once the internal landscape has been surveyed, then the individual is ready to connect to the outer in prayer. Many time I found that I might dive down into meditation only to rise up in prayer — prayers of resolve and prayers of remembrance — prayers of thanks and prayers of acceptance. Sometimes a deity is referenced, and sometimes not. And that last detail, so far, has not proven injurious to my health, or limited the usefulness of the practice.

When I pray, I am not asking for anything, I am not expecting any change in the world, only a change in myself. If I surrender anything, I offer up my ego and selfishness, and invite Grace to enter and fill that space. And afterwards, I take my changed self forward, with that small spark of the divine inside me, burning just a bit brighter.

So, how do you pray? How might you take old words and blow new breath into them? Have you created a ritual and observed any changes within you? When faced with a crisis, would you have the humility and trust to open up and allow a caring person to pray with you, to help fan your divine spark so that it might burn a little brighter as you go forward to face what you must?

Now, I have an assignment for us here. You see, this topic is too big for one sermon and I need your help.

Honestly, I suspect that many of you do pray, in your own fashion, and for your own purposes. Being the humble and private people you are, I’ll predict yours are humble, private, prayers. But, if you could, please tell me about them. Tell me how you might have retained or reclaimed prayer. Where it fits in your day, and what you say when life rises up and threatens to overwhelm you. Tell me about it. And in another couple of months, I’d like to be back up here, and I’d like to share some of your stories about prayer.

Until then, if prayer isn’t in your life, be a diligent UU and at least question why. And then question “why” again. For those who would consider “why not?” may I invite you to bring along your god, your breath, and your willingness to be changed.

Blessed Be

© Nell Newton 11/28/2010

Unmasking Courage

by Posted in Audio available, Chris Jimmerson, Guest Speakers, Sermons

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Chris Jimmerson

October 31, 2010

Happy Halloween! One of Halloween’s main themes is fear. On this Halloween, what do Unitarian Universalists fear as a religious community and where do we find courage, one of our churches values, in the face of those fears?

I’ve been studying our earliest Unitarian predecessors and have found in their stories remarkable examples of courage – courage in a religious context, what we might call “spiritual courage”. So, I’ll ask you to indulge me for a bit, as we travel back to the 16th century, Reader’s Digest version.

Very frightening things are happening. The Gutenberg press has allowed for the wide scale printing of the bible, so people outside the Catholic Church hierarchy can actually read it! The protestant reformation has begun. The Renaissance in literature, arts and sciences has begun. Those scary Humanists have started studying things. Now, all of this is a great threat to the Catholic Church, so the Inquisition is in full force also.

It is a time when the power and wealth of governments and that of the Church are tightly intertwined, and biblical interpretation, doctrine, has been a major role of the Church in this power structure.

So, to protect their own influence (not to mention to avoid becoming victims of the inquisition themselves), the leaders of the larger reformation movements have expressed their differences with the church as points of practice, not essential doctrine.

Into this volatile situation, a book appears, On the Errors of the Trinity, by a Spanish Scholar in his early twenties named Michael Servetus, questioning one of the sacred creeds of the Church – God in Trinity; the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

The year was 1531, and young Servetus had published his book hoping to convert the Reformers to his position that there was but one eternal God. His hopes were dashed. The Reformers quickly reaffirmed the Trinity. After trying and failing again with a second book, Servetus realized his books had put him in danger, changed his name and went into hiding in Lyons, France. He eventually become a medical doctor and is even mentioned in medical history texts for having elucidated the pulmonary circulatory system – like a good proto-Unitarian, he couldn’t be satisfied with only one field of excellence.

However, also like a good proto-Unitarian, Servetus had a little trouble letting go of things, and so, 15 years later, in 1546, he began another book AND, using his assumed name, struck up a correspondence debating theology with none other than John Calvin, the influential Protestant reformer who had established a powerbase in Geneva.

Calvin was courteous at first but quickly grew exasperated and sent Servetus his own views, as set out in Calvin’s, “Institutes of the Christian Religion”.

Upon receiving Calvin’s seminal book, Servetus responded with one of the first recorded instances of a long and beloved religious tradition still practiced in Unitarian Universalist churches across North America even today. He scribbled disparaging notes in the margins on where he thought Calvin was wrong and sent it back to him.

This may not have been wise.

An incensed Calvin, realizing he had actually been corresponding with Servetus, wrote to a friend that if Servetus should ever come to Geneva “I will not suffer him to get out alive”.

In 1553, Servetus published his new book, “The Restoration of Christianity”. By April 4 of 1553, the French Inquisition had arrested and jailed Michael Servetus for heresy, with evidence for the charge supplied by Calvin.

By April 7, 1553, Servetus had escaped from jail. After convincing the jailer to let him out so he could relieve himself in the jails walled garden, our proto-Unitarian ripped off his nightgown, and fully dressed underneath, scaled the wall and ran away. Inexplicably, he headed to Geneva. This most definitely was not wise.

In Geneva, he was recognized, arrested and convicted of spreading heresy, in a process largely manipulated by Calvin.

On October 27, 1553, Michael Servetus was burned at the stake. They used moist, green wood so that it would burn more slowly and prolong the suffering. They placed a crown sprinkled with gunpowder on his head.

And as the flames grew and the terror consumed him, as flesh was slowly turned to ash, Michael Servetus cried out in agony, but he never renounced his beliefs.

I wonder if today our religious beliefs could cost us our lives, could we summon that kind of courage? If facing that kind of terror, could I? Of course, I’m just speculating, because in modern America, such a situation seems to be a long ago and far away threat.

On September 21, 2005, the DuPage Unitarian Universalist Church received a bomb threat because of their support for marriage equality for gays and lesbians. It would be only one of many such threats against supporters of marriage equality.

On July 27, 2008, Jim David Adkisson walked into the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church and opened fire with a shotgun, murdering two people and injuring several others because “he wanted to kill some liberals”. Not so long ago. Not so far away.

Perhaps the crazed acts of disturbed individuals. Perhaps the consequences of a growing rhetoric of violence over disagreement in “modern” America.

Michael Servetus left two legacies; 1. His execution led to a slow growth in religious tolerance and 2. His writings influenced many to reconsider some of Christianity’s most central doctrines, including the Unitarians in Poland and those in Transylvania.

The histories of both are fascinating and contain lessons in spiritual courage.

The Socinians, as the early Polish Unitarians came to be known, thrived for a while in the 16th century protected by the Polish minor nobility, even establishing their own township. However, it was not to last. The Catholic Counter Reformation, a series of invasions by surrounding peoples and shifts in economic and social influences led to growing persecution, until by 1660, the Socinians faced a choice – recant their beliefs, leave Poland or be but to death.

Many did recant. A few gave up all they owned and left, seeking the freedom to practice their beliefs elsewhere, some eventually joining the Unitarians in Transylvania. After only a little over a century, the Unitarian religious movement in Poland had all but perished.

Again, having to make such a choice – to have to summon the courage to migrate, destitute to a foreign land in order to remain true to our religious convictions – may seem like a distant and remote possibility to us now.

Any yet, thousands of people from throughout the world come to the U.S. every year seeking asylum, having fled religious persecution in their home countries, having made exactly that choice. We imprison most of them as soon as they arrive here and, since 9-11, fewer and fewer are seeing their asylum requests granted, especially those we consider to have the “wrong” religion.

Even closer to home, a group calling themselves “Repent Amarillo” has been attacking our Amarillo UU Fellowship, using techniques learned from the “New Apostolic Reformation”, an international organization that provides training on, quote, “taking communities though militant spiritual warfare techniques” — mapping whole geographic areas to identify where the sinners are located (such as in UU churches apparently) and either convert them or “drive the demons out”. Now in case you’re picturing me wearing a rather large tinfoil hat at this point, consider that, before his disgrace, the Rev. Ted Haggard in Colorado Springs adopted these same techniques to harass people he had decided were witches. Ten of his 15 targets sold their homes and moved away because of the harassment.

Last week, Reverend Brock spoke about America’s rising intolerance toward Muslims. Interesting then, that the Unitarianism that exists in Transylvania today was able to develop in the 16th Century because of the tolerance extended to them by the Sultan of the Islamic Ottoman State and because an intermixing of Islamic and Christian cultures bred an ethos of religious acceptance.

Their history is a long one, and religious tolerance toward the Unitarians in Transylvania has waxed and waned, as governments and societal influences have changed, yet they have persisted, providing us lessons in courage.

One such lesson is that spiritual courage requires standing up for religious tolerance. Our Amarillo Unitarian Universalist Fellowship knows this! You see, on September 11 of this year, the head of Repent Amarillo, part-time Reverend David Grisham, had planned to burn a Koran in a public park. The UU Fellowship organized a counter demonstration.

As the good Reverend doused his copy of the Koran with lighter fluid and held it over a barbeque pit preparing to set it on fire, the counter-protesters held their hands over the pit to stop him. Twenty three year old skateboarder, Jacob Isom, an avowed atheist, came up behind the Reverend, grabbed the book from his hands, said, “Dude, you have no Koran,” and ran away with it.

And so it came to pass that thanks largely to a bunch of Unitarian Universalists and a skateboarding atheist, no holy books were burned in Amarillo Texas that day.

A second lesson is that courage is not always one short act in time – that courage may be required over the long run, in the face of societal challenges and changes. We must practice a vigilant and a persistent courage. Only a few years ago, the Texas State Comptroller at the time, Carole Keeton Strayhorn, some of you may have heard of her, denied non-profit status to the UU church in Denison because they did not have one system of belief.

The Texas State Board of Education has been busily rewriting the rules for our childrens’ textbooks to, among other things, strengthen requirements for teaching the “Christian beliefs of the Founding Fathers” and to deemphasize Thomas Jefferson because he was a deist.

At the national Values Voters summit this year, attended by several of the nation’s most well-known politicians, the following statements were issued: that the U.S. should ban the construction of any new mosques anywhere in America; and that the 1st amendment to the constitution does not justify the separation of church and state.

Of the politicians attending, several of whom stand a chance of becoming our next President, not one of them disavowed these statements.

How are we to have courage in light of such challenges? How we do we avoid becoming discouraged in a culture filled with dogmatism and intolerance?

Well, research has found that practicing small acts of courage in our daily lives, such as reaching out to those with whom we have disagreed, builds confidence and prepares us to act with courage when confronting far greater risks.

Research has also found that discerning our values, and reflecting on them often, provides a higher purpose and the impetus for acting courageously. And this idea of finding courage in our values is why, this Halloween, I have resurrected our Unitarian ancestors; although, saying ancestors is a stretch. For the most part, Unitarianism in the U.S. developed independently of that in Europe. Still, each embraced a set of strikingly kindred core values, a shared religious DNA if you will, which UU historian Earl Wilbur identified as commitment to religious freedom, unrestricted use of reason and tolerance of differing views and practices.

This religious DNA is still a key element in the blueprint for Unitarian Universalism today, when we proclaim, “One religion, many beliefs”, or when we affirm our 4th principle, “a free and responsible search for truth and meaning”. This religious DNA drives our congregation’s support of individual spiritual practice and growth.

You see, this foundational core of our belief system requires that we not only work for religious tolerance in the outside world, but that we practice religious freedom within our very religion itself.

And that is good news. That is a saving message that people, whether secular or spiritual, need in our world today.

It demands that we proactively invite people into a place of spiritual exploration without creedal requirements. It compels us to evangelize. Now, I know this idea of UUs evangelizing is controversial. Nonetheless, I will risk being branded a heretic even among Unitarian Universalists by advocating for evangelizing!

Evangelizing is controversial because we’re afraid of it. We don’t even like the word. For many of us, rightly or wrongly, it carries connotations of an irrational, overly emotional form of religious worship; of fundamentalism and restrictive dogma; of conversion and coercion, promises of heaven and threats of eternal hell.

Those of you who are Star Trek nerds like me will understand when I say that the evangelism practiced by the small-town Baptist church I grew up in felt more like a “church of the Borg” – “Resistance is futile. Freedom is irrelevant. You will be assimilated.”

We are also afraid of evangelism, because if we bring to the world our good news (what evangelize means by the way), people might just join us, we might just grow, and growth means change and change can be scary. We are afraid of it because we are much better at talking about what we do not believe than what we do believe. But what we do not believe is not a saving message. Taking about what we do believe takes a lot more courage, but we might start practicing it with our UU principles or our churches’ values: “We find meaning in acceptance of one another, justice, equity, the right of conscience and the use of the democratic process.”

“We believe there is eternal beauty in transcendence, community, compassion, courage and transformation.”

“We find there is God in the inherent worth and dignity of every person; in the interdependent web of existence of which we are a part.”

Wherever your personal beliefs meet those of our shared religion, that is our faith. Our core values, our religious DNA, will not allow us to keep it to ourselves. As the President of our denomination Rev. Peter Morales so aptly demonstrated in a recent sermon, there is a tremendous need for a safe community within which to explore life’s deeper questions.

After I found this church, I realized that I have been a Unitarian Universalist all of my life and just had never known it. I’ll bet many of you had the same experience or have heard the same thought expressed. Sometimes, we seem almost proud of this, but I think it is heartbreaking. I wonder how many more people have never found community with us because they have never heard of us; never heard from us.

If we were to evangelize, if we were to radiate the light from that chalice out beyond these walls and into our community and our world with our saving message of religious freedom, hope, dignity, peace, love, justice, compassion — the sacred beauty of shared existence, well, we might just transform the world, reclaim this paradise we have been given. Here. And now.

And that is what terrifies us the most.

“How DARE we dream that?” we ask ourselves. We dare it because our most deeply held values compel us to do so. We have the spiritual courage. It is in our religious DNA.

The Joy of Giving

by Posted in Audio available, Guest Speakers, Sermons

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Nell Newton

October 10, 2010

Click the play button to listen.

Prayer:

After performing the miracle of the loaves and fishes, Jesus and his disciples made a quick get away in a boat to leave the Pharisees to themselves. Once in the boat, the disciples realized that someone had forgotten to grab one of the seven baskets of extra bread, and there was now only one loaf of bread among them. While Jesus warned them against the leaven of the Pharisees and of Herod, the disciples got fixated on their one loaf of bread. Jesus was not impressed. “Were you not paying attention? Do not you yet see or understand?”

Now, you and I do not perform miracles. If there is a great crowd who have nothing to eat, we cannot break apart seven loaves and expect more than crumbs to reach every mouth.

So instead, let us gather the flour and water to bake more bread. Let us share our leavening among our neighbors. And let our efforts fill the hungry empty places in our world with love.

Great Spirit, I ask that we might each know the comforting weight of a small smooth stone in our pocket, waiting for its chance to become soup.

I ask this in the name of every thing that is holy, and that is precisely every thing.

Amen

Sermon:

Have I told anyone recently how much I enjoy being the past president of our church? It’s really quite nice. As past president, I attend all of the board meetings, but don’t have a vote. Instead I simply serve as advisor and offer insight when asked. And if anything goes kaboom, I genially defer to our current president Eric Stimmel who will smilingly attend to the clean up. It’s really very relaxing. And it’s allowing me more time to do other things that I enjoy around the church, like washing dishes, greeting guests, and assisting with our worship.

+++++++

From an imaginary posting on a website for Unitarian Universalist ministers:

“Fun-loving, plus-sized church seeks compatible minister for long-term commitment and growth. Turn-ons: stimulating Sunday morning chats and community engagement. Turn-offs: Calvinism and put-downs. Must like self and others. Ability to nurture souls, transform lives, and do justice a plus. Please, only serious inquiries.”

Or, so that is how I imagine how it might read if our search for a settled minister read like a personals ad.

Instead our Settled Minister Search Committee is preparing a detailed congregational report and a fat packet of information that will make the rounds of ministers in search. Many will pore over it and try to imagine what it might be like if they came here. Some will quickly realize they are not up to the challenge, but several will lean forward and re-read some sections excitedly and wonder “What would it be like to be with First Church Austin?”

But, let’s back up a bit…

Susan Smith is our district executive overseeing the Unitarian Universalist churches in the southwest, and in a conversation she explained that in some ways the relationship between a minister and congregation is a bit like a marriage. It is a covenantal relationship, with shared goals and mutual respect. Like actual marriages, the joys are mixed with tough spots – but the agreement to stand in right relationship with one another helps keep both partners on track.

And, like actual marriages, the relationships generally end in either death or divorce. At the end of our last settled ministry, some of us wondered if we would ever feel such a connection again. Others felt we might not even deserve such connection. And still others were ready to find someone new right away.

But, have you ever been on a date with someone who is on the rebound? Over a plate of otherwise good fettucine, you get hear about that person’s last love’s awful habits or endearing charms, and then all of the disappointments, betrayals, and bitterness that accompanied their parting. It’s enough to put you off your pasta.

Congregations can behave much the same way, which is why the advisors from the Unitarian Universalist Association recommended we spend at least two years with interim ministers before calling our next settled minister. We were encouraged to play the field, so to speak, before making a serious commitment. Bring some new voices into the pulpit – they told us. Try out new ways of doing things, take some classes, look hard at some old habits, and dream about your future!” And that is exactly what we’ve been busy doing for the past 18 months.

But all along, we have been looking forward to finding a special someone to share our dreams and journey with.

Unlike in other denominations, our congregations and ministers do not have arranged marriages. Our ministers aren’t sent down from a central authority. There is no bishop to play matchmaker. Instead, like modern marriages, UU congregations and ministers choose one another after careful consideration. So, into the documents the search committee has prepared, they have compiled our most appealing attributes, but have also been frank about our weaknesses. Yes, we’re attractive, but we’re also modest, and good company.

The report and packet are almost ready, and they will be sent out by the end of this month. They tell a rich story, and you are all in there! Your dreams are included in there because you’ve already given so much of yourselves. You participated in groups to build our covenant, name our weaknesses, define our values, and shape our mission. You completed a survey of what is important to you in a minister. Your voices will come through loud and clear to anyone who will read through the pages. Many thanks to our Settled Minister Search Committee for the hours they spent compiling them. I know they will represent us well.

Now, like a small town, in our small denomination news travels fast and most of the ministers know that First Church Austin is entering into search. Some have been waiting to see our documents for a long time. “Would it work out between us?” they wonder.

There are several months of more work ahead for the Search Committee. They will read many packets posted by ministers in search. They will listen to countless sermons. They will eventually travel to see the strongest candidates preach and have many conversations. By next spring it is likely they will recommend a candidate for us to consider.

What do the rest of us do in the meantime? Well, there are a few specific things we can do – keep up with the self improvement – our leadership development classes, our move to policy-based governance. And, while this might not be an arranged marriage, there are a few traditional touches that it is time to attend to. Namely, the trousseau and the dowry.

Like birds and mammals that line their nests by pulling fluff from their own breasts, this fall we will be making a nice soft, warm budget to hold our vision and welcome our new minister.

Now, in traditional communities, there are uncles and aunties who make sure that a good arrangement is made, and they will put up the extra resources to seal the deal. While the bride-to-be weaves and sews the linens she will need as a wife, the extended family sets aside extra resources to give the new couple a good start. One uncle provides a few extra goats, another buys a modern stove for the couple’s home. Aunties sew coins onto the ceremonial garments and set aside extra food for the feast. With all these preparations, family alliances are secured, and everyone deepens their commitment to the community.

We are now in the middle of our stewardship campaign, and each of us has the chance to be the aunties and uncles whose commitment to the community will seal the deal. Several of us have already dug a little deeper than usual to make our congregation’s next budget look healthy and attractive. The search committee’s documents will include a proposed budget based upon the results of the stewardship campaign. You can be sure that interested candidates will look closely at that detail. And who would really want us if our budget were scrawny and underfunded?

Are you in? Will you set aside a few extra goats? Will you help stuff grape leaves for the feast? Will you raise your pledge a bit to secure your family’s alliance, and deepen your commitment to this union?

Ask yourself: What will you bring to the feast and are you ready to be fed?

Benediction:

Ean Huntington Behr

You are in the story of the world.

You are the world coming to know itself.

May you trust that all you will ever say or do

Belongs in the story of the world.

June 2010 Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes

by Posted in Board Minutes Tagged

First Unitarian Universalist Church of Austin, Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes

Tuesday, June 21st, 2010 at 6:30 p.m.

First UU Church of Austin, 4700 Grover, Austin, TX 78756 in the Gallery

In Attendance:

Trustees: Eric Stimmel, President; Chris Jimmerson, Vice-President; Kae McLaughlin, Treasurer; Beverly Donoghue, Assistant Secretary; Nell Newton, Immediate Past President (Ex-Officio), Margaret Borden; Eric Hepburn; Brendan Sterne; Susan Thomson; Michael West.

Executive Team: Janet Newman, Interim Minister (Ex-Officio); Sean Hale, Executive Director (Ex-Officio)

Staff Present: Brent Baldwin, Director of Music; Lara Douglass, Director of RE

Visitors Present: None

Call to Order

The President called the meeting to order at 6:37 p.m.

Adoption of Agenda

The Trustees present adopted the agenda (Appendix, page 1).

Motion: Chris Jimmerson — Adopt the agenda.

Second: Michael West

Discussion: None

Vote: All affirmative

Reading and Lighting of the Chalice

The Interim Minister led the Trustees in reading in unison the Board covenant (Appendix, page 2), and the President lit the chalice, which was colorfully decorated by the Stimmel family – and inscribed with “Open Minds – Listening Ears – Loving Hearts.”

Visitor’s Forum

No visitors were present at the meeting.

Consent Agenda Items

The Trustees had read the consent agenda items (Appendix, pages 3-20) prior to the meeting.

Motion: Chris Jimmerson — Adopt the agenda.

Second: Brendan Sterne

Discussion: None

Vote: All affirmative

Discussion and Action Items – Governance

See Appendix, page 21, for Governance Principles.

Speaking with One Voice: The President referenced a recent flurry of contradictory e-mails on the same topic and proposed that he should be the first to respond to questions e-mailed to the Board. He could direct the question to the appropriate Board member or to the “justboard” list-serve. The Board member(s) would respond to the President, and he would respond to the questioner. The goal is to simplify e-mail communications.

Process Evaluation/Observation Roles: The Vice-President noted that the Board is not fully into policy-based governance and that not all Board members have been trained in policy-based governance. He proposed having a timekeeper for each meeting, and he volunteered to be the timekeeper for this meeting. He suggested that all Board members should fill out the Meeting Monitoring Guide (Appendix, page 22) and have a five-minute discussion on observations at the end of each Board meeting. He also proposed that one Board member would review Board members’ comments on the Meeting Monitoring Guide and report back at the next meeting. The Vice-President volunteered to review the monitoring comments and report back at the July Board meeting.

The Trustees discussed the following:

It is best to take two minutes to discuss the meeting immediately afterward, including what aspects need improvement. Members could use exception review. If Trustees are unsure about an item, they can pay more attention to it in the future.

Additional questions submitted by Joe Sullivan are on page 23 of the Appendix.

The Meeting Monitoring Guide has too many questions and is overwhelming. However, the Guide is good as a reminder, and perhaps over time Trustees will become accustomed to using this meeting evaluation format.

The discussion will be about the process. More roles may be added later after the Trustees have been trained by Joe Sullivan.

The Vice-President noted that during a recent conference call, Joe Sullivan, the policy governance consultant, discussed getting the philosophy of governance ready to vote on in July. He suggested taking the list of items, refining the list like Nell and Janet did with the covenant, and presenting it at the July Board meeting.

Reflection on Board Retreat: Brendan Sterne noted that a lot of work was accomplished at the June 12th retreat. The focus was on accuracy, and there is more to do, but he observed that Trustees demonstrated a superb use of time. Joe Sullivan also thought the retreat was very productive and that many parts are happening with the Governance Transition Plan (Appendix page 24). The Trustees reviewed the plan’s tasks, timelines, and task assignments and made the following comments:

Wordsmithing the Nested Bowls – in next 2 weeks? — Rose Ann Reeser, Brendan Sterne, Nell Newton, Chris Jimmerson, and Margaret Borden.

Nested Bowls provide the context for values. Narrowing down the values, mission, and ends to make more poetic.

The Nested Bowls team will ask for Trustees to review and comment on significant edits.

The Vice-President suggested that when people e-mail their edits to follow the President’s “one voice” policy.

2.Board meeting to approve the Nested Bowls? — No, the July Board meeting is two days after the July 18th service.

3.Prepare for the July 18th service — Chris Jimmerson, Nell Newton, and Margaret Borden.

One Trustee suggested giving the congregation the retreat handouts the Trustees received to show how the Board reviewed these comments to distil the essence of the congregation’s ideas.

Another suggestion was to display the actual posters created during the visioning sessions so the congregation could see before the service that all their comments were considered.

Eric Hepburn volunteered to help with planning the July 18th service.

Brendan Sterne’s first child is due July 18th, so all Trustees should be ready to help as needed with this important service.

4.Produce Philosophy of Governance statement – by July Board meeting — Brendan Sterne, Chris Jimmerson, Susan Thomson, and Klondike Steadman (Governance Task Force)

The governance philosophy will be a model since it will continue to be refined after the July meeting.

5.Declaring Policy-based Governance as our model – by July Board meeting

6.Prepare Governance Transition Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) – by July 18th service – Governance Task Force

7.Select example policy sets for Board to study — by August Board meeting – Governance Task Force

8.Schedule a community/leadership policy governance session (to be held in September?) – in the next 2 weeks? – Governance Task Force

This event will roll out policy governance to congregational leadership, and Joe Sullivan will be present.

Should this event be for current leadership or anyone who is interested?

Trustees need to pick the date soon since Joe Sullivan’s calendar fills up fast after General Assembly.

October 10th is the All-Council meeting so this meeting could be used for the policy governance session. October 10th is also the middle of the Stewardship Campaign. Last year’s campaign used 50 people, so there is a lot of cross-over. Perhaps the All-Council meeting should be held in September.

9.Schedule a Board policy-writing picnic (to be held in November?) – in next 2 weeks? – Governance Task Force

The Executive Director will be out of the office November 6th through 13th.

Saturday, November 20th is the proposed date, with the hope that Joe Sullivan will be available that day.

10.Look at bylaw revisions – commissioned in October, report to Board by February? — Bylaws Task Force (to be appointed)

11.Determine Executive Model – by August Board meeting

Trustees’ discussed the following considerations about the timing of this task:

Timing is driven by the ministerial search timeline.

The Governance Task Force could present their recommendations at the August Board meeting or at the July meeting.

The ministerial candidate will be in Austin in the spring. The Executive Model needs to be part of First UU Church of Austin’s packet for ministerial candidates.

Trustees discussed the pros and cons of specifying the governance model before the settled minister arrives:

Why commit to one model before reviewing candidates? The model should be flexible, depending on the candidates we are most interested in.

Deciding the Executive Model in advance narrows the decision on ministerial candidates too much. Some ministers want to be the single contact for the Board.

Joe Sullivan’s view is that the Executive Model should be decided by the congregation in advance and should be very clear to candidates about authority, responsibility, and executive structure.

Ambiguity about the Executive Model may set us up for difficulties when it is unclear and we end up negotiating what the Executive Model will be with the ministerial candidate.

It is unfair to candidates to be unclear. We need to specify a set of skills that we are looking for. Candidates need to know whether we want a Chief Executive Officer or a shared executive.

Role assignments may change when you add a new person to the mix.

We know ourselves best and what will work best. We will decide on the model based on what seems to be the best fit for now. The Board can change its mind or tweak the model in five years. It is important for Trustees to present a united front.

We need to know the process for developing recommendations for the Board in August, and the Executive Director needs to be included in the process.

Trustees noted the following resources for designing the Executive Model:

UUA’s Stefan Jonasson

survey of large churches

Joe Sullivan

the Executive Director/Administrative Task Force that developed the initial model.1 Cindy Raab will be asked to participate.

A liaison from the ministerial search committee, so they know the Executive Model decision is not an arbitrary one.

Sharon Moore, who has been an Executive Director before – Susan Thomson will invite Sharon to work with the governance task force before the July Board meeting.

12.Support Stewardship Campaign – Fall

The actual campaign is during the month of October.

The President applauded Brendan Sterne for his diligent work on the Governance Transition Plan, but expressed concern that the Board might be trying to do too much too fast. He questioned whether the intense schedule might lead to volunteer overload. The Vice-President suggested that the timeline could be pushed back to July-August. He also suggested that Joe Sullivan should be brought in as a consultant to assist with items 3 and 6, planning for the July 18th service and developing the Policy Governance FAQs.

Board reflections on the retreat included:

What Trustees came up with during the retreat was exciting.

Thanks to Trustees for cleaning up.

Michael LeBurkien found his gifts, could not tell a meeting had been held at his house, found Kae’s briefcase, and prefers the Board’s furniture arrangement to his own.

There was such good teamwork

Appreciation for the Board’s enthusiasm and how they cranked out their ideas

Pulling out the values simplified the mission statement.

It really helped that Joe Sullivan kept reminding the Board to keep it succinct.

Joe Sullivan and Laura Park, head of Unity Consulting, were very impressed with the Board’s work. He was surprised that the Board got further than most churches he’s worked with.

The Interim Minister noted that the Board knows how to cooperate. The challenge is to translate that cooperation to the congregation and community.

Presentation of Mission to Congregation: Chris Jimmerson, Nell Newton, and the other Nesting Bowls wordsmiths will refine the poetry and precision of the draft mission developed by the Board at the retreat: “We gather in community to nourish souls, transform lives, and do justice.”

The Trustees discussed the following:

The mission will need to be changed in the bylaws.

Will a special congregational meeting be held to change the mission?

Joe Sullivan recommended that the congregation vote on the mission at the December congregational meeting and that the mission be removed from the bylaws.

Brendan Sterne was thankful that the Board approved $15,000 to complete the policy governance work. There was a one-vote difference in the vote to approve these funds. To date, about $7,000 has been spent.

Discussion and Action Items – Other

Background on Board Liaisons and their Function under Policy Governance: Nell Newton explained that in the past, one of the first things the Board did was to have Trustees sign up to be liaisons for the various committees, usually more than one. Under policy-based governance, the executives oversee committees’ work. Board liaisons would triangulate this arrangement. It is assumed that committee chairs will go to the executive who oversees that area. Trustees can still talk to people, but Trustees need to ask if the committee chair has talked with the Interim Minister or the Executive Director, as appropriate.

The Executive Director advised that a formal announcement to committee chairs should be made at a future All-Council Meeting. An informal decision made by the Board two years ago will be rolled out in the fall.

The Trustees and staff discussed the following:

The formal announcement could be done in July – after the Board does the July 18th service.

The Board should wait until the fall to make the announcement because some committee chairs will need more one-on-one conversations to feel comfortable with this new arrangement.

As the Board is transitioning to policy governance, Trustees should ask committee chairs to go to the Executive Team and wait until later to make this policy official.

The policy is still confusing.

The Board should advise leadership to contact the Board about policy issues.

Board liaisons play a valuable role. Trustees have built-in expertise — based on their interests and familiarity with committees — that they can bring back to the Board to inform them when discussing a related issue in Board meetings.

The Board needs to look at the linkage role that Board liaisons play.

The Board liaison role should be reborn so it is congruent with the linkage strategy.

The Board risks continuing to involve itself in operational issues.

As the Board becomes more familiar with policy governance, adjustments will be made.

The Vice-President suggested that the Board add linkage to the July Board meeting agenda and develop a series of steps.

Visitor’s Forum Recommendation: Margaret Borden nd summarized her recommendations for the visitor’s forum (Appendix, page 25):

Congregation members should not bring problems to Board meetings since the Board cannot take action if the item is not on the agenda.

The ten minutes allotted to visitor’s forum should be divided by the number of visitors present.

Members must give action items to the Board Secretary by the first Tuesday of the month for possible inclusion on that month’s agenda.

Reassure members that if they have any questions, they can approach any Board member.

The Trustees and staff discussed the following:

Members should contact the Secretary for consideration of an item to be considered for the next Board meeting agenda. The Executive Committee, of which the Secretary is a member, will decide whether to include the item on the agenda.

One Trustee expressed concern that once the Board has true linkage opportunities, the visitor’s forum may not be needed. Linkage events will help a great deal. Otherwise the Board may have to correct a member in a public forum for bringing an action item that is not on the Board’s agenda.

It is important for people to have opportunities to give the Board a piece of their minds. They may want to see all Board members at the same time. People come for all kinds of reasons – to admonish, to thank, to announce, etc. There needs to be a place to bring these to the full Board.

Make sure the visitor’s forum is a line item on the linkage “to do” list.

A community forum offered three times a year could be offered as a forum for members and friends. There is some concern about training inappropriate behavior by members.

Be mindful of the covenant for the Board and Executive Team, which says that we support each other in the face of congregational misunderstandings and disagreements, address concerns directly with each other in a timely manner, and encourage other in the church to do the same.

Board meetings are a perfect time to educate people who come to do mudslinging – to teach about our covenant and redirect them to appropriate behavior. We need this interim step rather than suddenly changing to no visitor’s forum. Trustees must be willing to bring the visitor’s forum back into covenant.

Could add to the last paragraph, “…whether a specific item is a policy or program issue”

A two-minute maximum was suggested for each speaker since an item can lead to 15 minutes of discussion by the Board.

Ninety percent of this issue is setting up a linkage system. A two-minute limit is an unnecessary constraint. The final paragraph is unnecessary. Any Board member can talk to anyone at any time about anything.

Motion: Eric Hepburn – Table the visitor’s forum draft until the Board does the linkage discussion

Second: Chris Jimmerson

Discussion: None

Vote: All affirmative

There was a quick reminder for each Trustee to sign up as Board representative for the Sunday morning service for the next three months. Board representatives read the special notes at the end of the service, come early to greet, stay late to greet. From June through August, only one representative is needed each week. Starting in September, two Board representatives will be needed each week.

Update on Stewardship: The President spoke with Bill Edwards and Tyler ?? about developing a theme about the mission/vision.

The Trustees discussed the following:

We do not want the congregation to have double vision or blurred vision.

Brainstorming about the mission is fine as long as the focus stays on the mission.

Gift for Luther Elmore: Nell Newton noted that the Trustees had overlooked Luther Elmore’s contributions to the Board when he had to leave the Board before the end of his term as Treasurer. Nell would like to collect donations to buy a gift card to BookPeople. She asked that Trustees see her after the meeting if any would like to contribute to the purchase of Luther’s gift.

Finance Committee Report: The Treasurer was tasked to revise the Finance Committee’s job description to reflect recent Board decisions. Her proposed edits (Appendix, page 26) include:

Budget: Delete preparation of the annual budget from the Finance Committee’s list of responsibilities. One of the Executive Director’s responsibilities in his job description is the preparation of the annual budget. The Board assigned annual budget authority and responsibility to the Executive Team during the April 2010 Board meeting.

Rental policy: Delete references to Finance Committee authority and responsibility – The Board approved a proposal at the April 2010 Board meeting to delegate rental policy responsibility to the Executive Team.

The Trustees discussed the following:

Trustees confirmed that these changes reflected Board policy decisions made at the April 20th Board meeting.

The Executive Director goes to all Finance Committee meetings.

The Treasurer clarified that budget authority is delegated to the Executive Team rather than the Executive Director.

Motion: Brendan Sterne – Amend the Finance Committee Report recommendation to change budget authority delegation from the Executive Director to the Executive Team.

Second: Eric Hepburn

Discussion: None

Vote: All affirmative

Motion: Brendan Sterne – Adopt the Treasurer’s proposed description change of the Finance Committee as amended

Second: Eric Hepburn

Discussion: None

Vote: All affirmative

Treasurer Description: The Treasurer referred to her proposed edit of the Treasurer description in the Policies and Procedures Manual (Appendix, page : Delete the Treasurer’s responsibility of working with the Finance Committee to prepare the annual budget – to reflect the Board’s delegation in April of annual budget preparation to the Executive Team.

Motion: Chris Jimmerson – Amend the Treasurer Description to reflect the proposed description change of the Treasurer description.

Second: Eric Hepburn

Discussion: None

Vote: All affirmative

Report on Budget Updates Regarding New Minister’s Contract: The Treasurer referred to Budget Shortfall for Interim Minister #2’s cost in 2010 (Appendix, page 28). The “Difference” column represents the possible $6,632 shortfall for the Interim Minister during September to December 2010. We do not know yet what Interim Minister #2’s moving expenses or professional expenses will be but we can assume that ten percent of his salary will be for professional expenses, and ten percent of his salary will be for moving expenses. It appears that the church will be about $18,500 short for the budget year because of the Rev. Broc’s expenses. The Treasurer referred to the paragraph in Section 2 of the Interim Minister #2’s signed contract, where he can switch funds from moving to professional expenses.

The Trustees and staff discussed the following regarding the budget dilemma:

Professional expenses are capped, and moving expenses are capped. The flexibility concerns benefits only. So delete the “*” note on the handout that “the contract stipulates that Interim Minister #2 may spend money from one allowance to another. Therefore, if he does not spend the $8900 in moving expenses, he can use remaining portions for professional expenses, disability [insurance], etc.”

Interim Minister #2 should be able to shift funds both ways — from moving expenses to professional expenses and vice versa.

The Board has committed to spend funds it does not have. As a result, the Board will need to raise the funds. If Trustees talk directly to a handful of angels, this would distract from the October Stewardship Campaign.

The Financial Assets Management Policy (FAMP) says that the Board may allocate up to $10,000 for unanticipated expenses in the budget. he Board could keep these expenses outside of the budget since the restriction is on the operating fund. There are other potential funding sources such as the long-range fund.

When must the Board decide what to do? The Board will pay Interim Minister #2’s monthly salary. The maximum potential liability is about $24,400, but the Board needs to ask him how much he needs for moving expenses.

The budget is a plan. We have a signed contract to which the Board is bound. Trustees must deal with a financial policy restriction that is not realistic.

The Board unknowingly violated the FAMP with the offer to Interim Minister #2. How should the offer have been handled? Could the Board have gone to the congregation to vote on changing the budget mid-year? The best advice from the UUA and consultants was to offer this salary to ensure ministerial quality.

The Trustees and staff discussed several concerns about the FAMP:

The FAMP requires that only one month’s expenses remain in operating reserves, which does not follow the customary four to six months reserve of customary financial best practices. Logically speaking, the Memorial Savings Fund could be used, but the FAMP does not permit use of these funds until one year later. As a result, the FAMP ties the congregation’s hands to meet the needs of the church.

The FAMP has no provision for flood insurance.

The FAMP fails to do several things and is not best practices. Parts of the FAMP should be separate, and parts of the FAMP should be in the bylaws.

An additional financial concern was mentioned. The Settled Minister Search Committee has agreed on a $1,700 budget required for their work. The church has already funded $3,700 — $3,500 plus a $200 item. The Settled Minister’s need for funds is another example of how the FAMP prevents effective financial decision-making to address congregational needs.

A Trustee voiced a concern that the accidental FAMP violation occurred as the church neared the mid-point of interim ministerial tenure, which could negatively impact the search for a settled minister.

The FAMP provides for the Board to cut the budget, lay off staff, cut health insurance for all staff, and turn off electricity during the summer. The Board elected not to take these actions because they would be immoral.

Simply put, the FAMP does not trust the congregation to spend its own funds wisely.

The FAMP overrides policy, so the FAMP will override policy governance.

The Trustees discussed the way to proceed:

The wisest course for the future is to revise the FAMP.

The Board needs to develop a proposal on what the Executive Team’s financial management policy should be. In December 2009, a proposal to change the FAMP requirements from approval at two semi-annual meetings to approval at one semi-annual meeting did not come close to passing. People proposing it were unprepared to explain the positive impact on financial decision-making. Strong proponents of the current FAMP did not realize the limitations of the FAMP.

Strong resistance to revising the FAMP is rooted in distrust or mistrust. Serious consideration of this issue involves a paradigm/cultural shift.

The Board needs to announce to the congregation that it unknowingly violated the FAMP. Trustees must show that the Board was hamstrung in addressing the proposed compensation to contract with a quality Interim Minister #2 because of the limitations of the FAMP.

The Board must accomplish two things: 1) develop a strategy for the December meeting to change the FAMP; 2) overcome the current culture by presenting a vision of the most appropriate financial management policy – one that takes the best practices in the current FAMP and adds to them.

The Board will need to get funds from places other than the operating fund but is not deciding from where at this time.

Process – Meeting Evaluation Forms: The Trustees made the following observations about the first Board meeting led by the new Board officers:

The President did a great job in moving the meeting along and keeping everyone on track.

Thanks to Beverly Donoghue for serving as Secretary while Klondike Steadman is out of the country.

It would be helpful to bring a few extra copies of the comprehensive packet to Board meetings.

The Vice-President did a good job monitoring the time spent on most agenda items.

At the retreat, Trustees used one to five fingers, with five being the highest, to represent whether they felt like they were heard. Tonight all but two Trustees responded with five fingers, and those two responded with four fingers.

On the need to raise hands to be called on by the President to speak, the Board needs to create ways to allow for more give-an-take when needed on a particular topic. One way is for the President to ask a Trustee with experience/expertise on a particular topic to provide information that is relevant to the discussion and when finished speaking, return to recognizing the raised hands, one-by-one, of those waiting to speak.

Even if the discussion goes in a different direction when a Trustee has not had a chance to speak, when it is his/her turn to speak, the person can always say, “Let us go back to the issue of…that we were discussing…”

When several people tried to talk at the same time, the President did a good job of structuring input.

For the best way to evaluate interactions and conversations, Michael West described a method he used several years ago: scoring whether and how often an individual asked the most questions, gave information, provided clarification, sought information, suggested action, reinforced someone, disagreed, interrupted, etc. He reviewed his observations of individual contributions by Trustees and staff during the first half of the Board meeting and noted that there were lots of reinforcing comments.

The Vice-President had a question for the group. He served as timekeeper. He let the discussion go as long as the stated agenda time. Was this okay? Trustee comments included:

Let the conversation continue a little longer if the comments are productive and mostly on topic.

One Trustee expressed some frustration over spending a lot of time on small points. He also noted that the evaluation focus is all about process, and the Board is learning as it goes.

The Trustees made the following comments about the meeting evaluation:

Most Trustees said they were heard.

It might help if Trustees do not put their hands up until the current speaker has finished talking. One Trustee slightly holds up his pencil, in an unobtrusive way, to alert the President that he would like to speak eventually. The point is for Trustees to make sure they are actively listening.

Trustees were pleased that Michael West wrote down his observations about the process, not content, of the meeting. It would help to have a grid with names, where Board members could keep track of process observations like Michael had done.

Two Trustees encouraged other Trustees to ask them to stop talking if they were asking too many questions. Both said they would understand and would not be offended.

Trustees cannot always tell when someone is through speaking. Perhaps if each speaker could say when they have finished.

Eric Hepburn volunteered to be timekeeper for the July Board meeting.

Trustees had these closing comments:

Thanks to Brent Baldwin, Director of Music, for the choir’s wonderful performance of “Cloudburst”.

As the Board is phasing in roles, let Eric Hepburn know about supplies needed for the Board box and chalice.

Trustees were reminded of the follow-up role: calling Trustees who miss a Board meeting to bring them up to date on highlights of the meeting and what was discussed.

Nell Newton reminded Trustees that she was collecting donations for Luther Elmore’s gift.

Returning Trustees welcomed Susan Thomson and Eric Hepburn, who are both new Trustees to the Board.

Board-Executive Team Covenant Reading: The Trustees and staff read aloud the Covenant of Healthy Relations for the Board and Executive Team (Appendix, page 29).

With no further business, the President adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Beverly Donoghue

Assistant Secretary

Salvation – A UU View

by Posted in Audio available, Guest Speakers, Mark Skrabacz, Sermons

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Rev. Mark Skrabacz

August 29, 2010

Yesterday was the 47th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have Dream Speech.” He gave his soul-stirring message to 200,000 on the Washington Mall in what has been called the crowning moment of the Civil Rights Movement. It was ranked the top American speech of the 20th century by a 1999 poll of scholars of public address.

I suppose you know that yesterday Fox Network Commentator Glenn Beck held a Tea Party Rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Beck says Christians should leave their social justice churches. He says social justice is a code word for communism and nazism. I don’t know if Beck is just strange, or just trying to be controversial, or just trying to make money. But in any case, what he has said attacks the very heart of Dr. King’s message and of the Christian faith, and I wonder how many Christians will express their faith by no longer watching his show, and even decrying his rally, since Beck denies one of the central teachings of the Bible, and Jesus and Dr. King — that of social justice.

Of course Unitarian Universalism is largely a social justice advocacy movement. The fact that we meet as a church and in a church building just might cause many of our neighbors to wonder exactly what it is our church believes. No doubt some of us have searched for ways to express our UU experiences and, hence, I continue to speak about our roots, practices and understandings. No doubt our UU views can appear as disperate as the contrast between Dr. King and Glenn Beck. Today, I’m going to entertain the notion of a controversial topic, that of salvation, salvation from a UU View.

Are you saved? This is a question that is usually only asked by evangelical Christians. What, if anything, might a Unitarian Universalist answer?

If we’re feeling facetious we might be tempted to respond with something like this, “Saved from what? or Saved for what? or Saved by whom, or what? ” But those answers might end the conversation. And if, like me, you believe that Unitarian Universalism has something marvelous to offer a tired and troubled world, you might want the conversation to continue. I would instead offer something like “Yes, I’m saved, but I’m not sure we mean the same thing. What do you mean when you say saved?” And I would ask the person to tell me his or her salvation story. And then I would tell mine.

Because you see, I am saved, just not in the same way fundamentalist Christians mean. That is the reason I am here in this pulpit today, proclaiming with enthusiasm the good news. So what do I, a Unitarian Universalist, mean by salvation?

Well, part of my answer has to do with theology, and goes back to our roots in Universalism and Unitarianism. In America, both began as reactions against the prevailing orthodox Calvinist doctrines of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. These said that human beings were “totally depraved,” with no free will and no ability to make choices that would bring good into the world. The God of Calvin and many Biblical literalists had elected from the beginning of time which humans would be saved and which would be damned to suffer in a fiery hell for all eternity. Jesus was crucified and died in order to pay the penalty for the sins of the elect. The way to know whether a person was one of the elect, who would be saved and resurrected in the new and perfect world that God would create at the end of time, was to read the “signs.” One of these signs had to do with how much material wealth a person had; prosperity was therefore a sign of election. Perhaps this theology describes part of Glenn Beck’s view of what a true Christian should be about? There would be no need for social justice if humans were merely pawns in God’s chess game of life. Besides who could possibly do good and just things for another when only God can effect such goodness?

Two of our best known Universalist preachers were John Murray and Hosea Ballou, in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. They could not accept the Calvinist conception of God. For them, God was a good and loving father. This God would no more condemn any of his creatures to an eternal fiery hell than a loving parent would place a child in an earthly fire. Further, a God who would require the cruel and tortured death of a beloved son as atonement for the sins of some of humanity was not fit for our worship. Ballou argued that God’s purpose was to “happify” people, sending Jesus to teach us by example how to live a happy, healthy and holy life. If we lived in accordance with God’s purposeÑto love God and God’s creation and one another, yes, and practice social justiceÑwe would be happy. If we did notÑif we lived, instead, separated from God and from each otherÑwe would be unhappy. We, ourselves, would create our own heaven and hell here on earth.

Now, here is what I think is the essence of Ballou’s theology, the part that rings as true today as it did two centuries ago. And this very same idea was argued by Unitarians William Ellery Channing and, a generation later, Theodore Parker. It is this: what we need to be saved from is not original sin, and not the fiery pits of hell. What we need to be saved from is the concept of the angry, vengeful God who redeems humanity through violence and divides people into the saved and the damned. Ballou, Channing, and Parker argued that since people model their own behavior on what they imagine God to be, this concept of a wrathful, bloodthirsty God results in earthly hell. It results in the division of people into the worthy and the worthless, and it sanctifies violence against and oppression of those deemed to be worthless. This theology causes people to live in and from fear. A theology of a loving God would enable people to live in and from love.

Ralph Waldo Emerson put it this way: “It behooves us to be careful in what we worship, for what we are worshipping is what we are becoming.” For Ballou, the critical thing was to liberate people from fear so they could live in love. And fear resided in what Ballou called the carnal mind, by which he meant in the body. Fear resided in the body. So Universalist thinking in the nineteenth century made salvation not about where our individual, personal souls go after we dieÑthat was a non-issue. Instead, salvation was a collective enterprise. In both Universalism and Unitarianism, this enterprise meant attending to conditions in the here and now, in this world. If we could liberate people’s bodies from fear of hunger and violence, they could live in love.

We North American UUs can proudly remember the heroes and heroines of our heritage of social justice, like Benjamin Rush and his timely defense of social equality in the late 18th century. And Theodore Parker’s passionate advocacy of abolition in the mid-19th century. We remember Adin Ballou and his critique of the industrial society, and William Ellery Channing with his abhorrence of poverty. Olympia Brown was ordained into the ministry in 1863, the first denominationally ordained woman minister in the US. We remember her along with Red Cross founder Clara Barton, women’s sufferage pioneer Susan B. Anthony, and Dorothea Dix, a social justice activist on behalf of the indigent insane who, through a vigorous program of lobbying state legislatures and the United States Congress, created the first generation of American mental asylums. During the Civil War, she served as Superintendent of Army Nurses.

The UU view of salvation is for life here and now, in love. In the Gospel of John, Jesus says, “I come that they might have life, and have it abundantly.” Present-day Unitarian Universalism still reverberates with these ideas about salvation. While some of us believe in a personal deity and some do not, we agree in our covenant of seven principles that are underpinned by the following theological notions: the equal belovedness of every person, the importance of caring for this beautiful world here and now, the need to live in love and not fear.

This is part of my explanation of what I mean by salvation, but only part. Why do I say so joyfully that, yes, I am saved?

I grew up as the eldest son in a family whose Catholic roots were generations deep. Our image of God was that portrayed as the rule maker and law enforcer in the sky and of the fear of the final judgment. I began more than 20 years of formal Catholic schooling before I was 5, where I was taught that people are inherently sinful because Adam and Eve disobeyed God at the beginning of creation. Still I tried my best to be good and do everything right, but still I felt that God was angry with me and I was motivated by fear. In order to redeem myself and reach heaven someday, I must do all I could to be like Jesus. I must suffer, and forgive, suffer, and forgive. I was smart, and strong-willed, and I loved earthly things like Nature, and my friends and all things artsy, and it was hard for me to focus on getting to heaven. But I wanted more than anything to be good enough to be loved, so I did my best. I suffered and I forgave. Some fundamentalist Christians would say that this Catholic view of God is inaccurate and that basically all I have to do is accept the sacrifice of Jesus and his Lordship over my life and that all will be well, because God will only see Jesus when looking at me.

Perhaps this next part will sound familiar to many of you because this is your story too, and I have heard it from you many times. When I first began to attend a UU church in Midland during breaks from college I was overwhelmed that people cared enough to listen to me…and I didn’t have to worry about towing the party line. I found I was encouraged to develop my own ideas. This was in the late 60s and I was upset about the conflict in Vietnam and the continuing racial prejudices supposedly righted by integration, yet when I went to the UU church, I could express myself and be heard. That meant a lot to me. Sometimes I’d go to church services and just sit in the back and cry. There was a lot of stuff in my life to process, much of it from my Catholic upbringing. Then I started participating around the edges a little bit, joining demonstrations and small groups to discuss and act on social justice issues.

Finally, years later at the same Midland UU church, after my father’s death in early 1986, I started a men’s group, in which we gathered around and talked with each other and listened to our real stories. When it was my turn, I couldn’t resist being open. The other men had shared deeply, and their stories were riveting. No one had been judged, no one had been rejected. So I told my truth. And instead of turning away from me in disgust, the men leaned in and listened, nodding in recognition of what they heard. It was the first place I had ever been where I felt I could be my whole self, and be accepted for it — truly loved. My community looked into my face and saw light there, and reflected it back tenfold — a hundred fold.

In this way was I saved. Unitarian Universalism taught me that I have inherent worth and dignity, and that I am a beloved member of the interdependent web of all existence. The community that embodied this theology liberated me from fear by gathering around me in love. It gave me the ability to break out of the cycle of codependence and violence in which I was trapped for so long. I finally developed the strength and courage I needed to pursue my dreams and clarify my intentions. I also had the help I needed: my community showed up, with meals, work, rides when my car broke down. People visited me in the hospital when I had surgeries and held my hand when the stuff of life appeared bleak. This was redemptive.

Learning I was inherently lovable helped me to accept the profoundly generous love of others. Knowing all people have inherent worth and dignity helped me share my life in ways that bring me closer with others and to get upset when their freedom is limited. My community helps me create a life that is worth living. This is what I mean by salvation. This religion saves lives. And I think it can help save the world.

At this moment in time we are in the midst of economic, ecological, and political chaos that is unprecedented in our life’s experiences. We know that the sheer scale of change means that nothing will ever be the same again. We have no road map for the future. Some of us have lost many of the securities we were accustomed to. I’ve learned that whenever the human organism is confronted with sudden, potentially life-threatening change, its first response is fear. This is automatic. And right now fear is rampant in our world, as the religious fundamentalists and persons like Glenn Beck and others in many countries and many religions skillfully use apocalyptic rhetoric to manipulate people into acting from their deepest fears rather than from hope or love. This strategy has and is working very well in American debates on health care, immigration and economic reform, as people are manipulated into thinking their individual lives are endangered by changes that may actually benefit the whole.

But shall we have a little compassion for these people who ask us if we are saved? Their God would cast them into the depths of a fiery hell for all eternity if they do not believe just the right thing. They are sore afraid. They are alone and far from home; salvation for them is so individualized, and involves going to a world that is not this one. But we can offer something different in this time of crisis. We can offer real liberation from fear, and a fall into love. We can offer a theology that recognizes our interdependence with each other and with the larger community of life, in which salvation is collective and involves healing this world. We can embody this theology by doing what we do best: gathering together, and listening to each other’s stories. Singing songs, speaking words that matter and making life and art that give us hope and courage. Let’s help each other imagine what might come next. Then, show up to help.

My friends, we have here a religion that could be the salvation of the world, if we will but claim its power and take it to the streets. The stakes are too high for us to hide our light under a bushel. What do we say in the face of a culture that preaches salvation from hell and damnation? We could echo the words of John Murray, “Give them not hell, but hope”

I hope today’s message will encourage you to think, what will you say? I hope today’s message will encourage you to act, what will you do?

July 2010 Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes

by Posted in Board Minutes

First Unitarian Universalist Church – Austin, TX

Minutes – Board of Trustees – July 20, 2010

In Attendance:

Trustees: Eric Stimmel, President, Chris Jimmerson, Vice-President, Nell Newton, Immediate Past President (Ex-Officio)), Margaret Borden, Eric Hepburn, Brendan Sterne, Susan Thompson, Michael West, Laura Wood

Executive Team: Sean Hale, Executive Director

Visitors Present: John Keohane

Call to Order

The President called the meeting to order at 6:40PM.

Adoption of Agenda

The Trustees present adopted the agenda

Motion: Brendan Sterne—adopt the agenda

Second Michael West

Discussion: None

Vote: All Affirmative

Reading and Lighting of the Chalice

Visitor’s Forum

John Keohane announced that his Committee is seeking additional members to the Denominational Affairs Committee.

Consent Agenda Items

The Trustees had read the consent agenda items prior to the meeting.

Motion: Chris Jimmerson—Adopt the agenda

Second: Brendan Sterne

Discussion: None

Vote : All Affirmative

Process Evaluation

Michael West speaks on Process Evaluation:

  • Presented a matrix for process evaluation of board meetings. He will mark verbal behaviors. Purpose to give each member feedback and to ensure a more productive meeting.

Settled Minister Search Committee, by Michael West

Board Liaison Committee Chairs: Sharon Moore, Michael Kerry

  • Financial needs mentioned.
  • Between now and October, we will need to have a compensation package; we also will need a contract.
  • A negotiating team will be needed by November. One board member, one non-board member will comprise the team.

Chris Jimmerson motioned, Brendan Sterne seconded to adopt Values-Mission-Ends statement.

  • Approved.

Recommendation to adopt governance philosophy:

  • Motion to adopt by Eric Hepburn, seconded by Susan Thomson.
  • Affirmed

Recommendation to adopt Policy Based Governance as the model the Church will pursue for Our Governance:

  • Motion to adopt by Eric Hepburn, seconded by Susan Thomson.
  • Affirmed

Report on request for consultant-coordinator.

  • Sean suggests Walter Pearson, District Consultant, to visit to discuss staff salaries.
  • Request for invitation to Walter Pearson from the board.
  • It was decided that we should try to wait for Ed Brock’s presence before Walter Pearson conducts any workshops.

Report from General Assembly.

  • Chris Jimmerson: Highlight was developing deeper relationships with other church members. We have a lot in common with other UUs.
  • Nell Newton: Empowered by so many UUs in one place. Most interesting workshop was on racism. “Bless Those Who Serve” a book for military, developed by UUs, had a special recognition ceremony.
  • Sean Hale: We confirmed a lot of things we’re doing right, a lot of strategies for the future. Paid volunteer coordinator is on staff for larger congregations.
  • Eric Stimmel: Attended Board Presidents’ meetings. Spoke with other congregations about best practices. We’re in relatively good shape. A membership coordinator on staff is highly recommended. Thank you to church for sending him to General Assembly.

Linkage Discussion / Governance Team – Susan Thompson

  • How much time is the Board willing to commit to?
  • Chris Jimmerson suggested the idea of “linkage launch”
  • Sean Hale cautioned against the use of jargon (i.e. “linkage”) as being alienating.
  • The use of surveys was also discussed.
  • No decisions made.

Discussion of Governance Made – Brendan Sterne

  • Not making a decision tonight.
  • Some ideal broad characteristics were outlined.
  • The consensus is that effective teamwork is more important to the growth of a congregation than a “rock star” minister.

Process Evaluation – Michael West

  • 211 “verbal observations”
  • First half of meeting – 51% verbal interactions were questions
  • Second half of meeting: fewer questions, building on ideas that other people had proposed.

Draft Covenant of Healthy Relations for the Board and the Executive Team was read aloud by the group.

With no further discussion, the meeting adjourned before going into executive session at 9:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Laura Wood