Abner Kneeland and Freedom of Religion

August 22, 2010 by Sasha Lorenzo Posted in Audio available, Guest Speakers, Luther Elmore, Sermons

Luther Elmore

August 22, 2010

READING

“PHILOSOPHICAL CREED” (Abner Kneeland – 1833)

… I believe that the whole universe is NATURE, and that the word NATURE embraces the whole universe; that GOD and NATURE, so far as we can attach any rational idea to either, are synonymous terms. Hence, I am not an Atheist, but a Pantheist; that is, instead of believing there is no God, I believe that in the abstract, all is God; and that all power that is, is in God, and that there is no power except that which proceeds from God. I believe that there can be no will or intelligence where there is no sense; and no sense where there are no organs of sense; and hence, sense, will and intelligence, is the effect, not the cause of organization. I believe in all that logically results from these premises, whether good, bad or indifferent. Hence, I believe, that God is all in all; and that it is in God we live, move, and have our being; and that the whole duty of man consists in living as long as he can, and in promoting as much happiness as he can while he lives.

SERMON

Freedom of religion is a concept that we in America claim to have achieved and practice. Is that true? Do we have freedom of religion, legally and socially, and do we as a society really believe in it?

In this country we have a long history of religious intolerance. The early colonists in Massachusetts Bay certainly did not believe in freedom of religion. Thousands came to America in the 1630s and 1640s to escape religious restrictions in England, but once they arrived in New England, they did not allow it. Religious doctrine and practices were established and non-conformists were punished.

By 1648 the colony had organized its laws into an alphabetized code called the “Lawes and Liberties.” These Lawes and Liberties specified rights and responsibilities as well as penalties. For instance, Baptists or anyone else who “openly condemn(ed) or oppose(ed) the baptizing of infants” were banished. The law also provided for the banishment of Catholic priests. If a banished priest returned, upon a second conviction he was “put to death.” You could also be banished for denying the immortality of the soul or the resurrection of the body, or that mankind was not justified by Jesus’ death and resurrection.

These restrictive laws continued throughout the colonial era into the early years of American independence. In 1782 – with independence not yet won – the state of Massachusetts made it illegal to “blaspheme the holy name of God… his creation, government or final judging of the world…or the Holy Ghost, or…the Holy Word of God.” Punishment could be up to one year in jail.

Of course, the first amendment to the US Constitution adopted in 1791 provided that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Early on the Supreme Court interpreted this amendment literally, that is CONGRESS shall make no law, states – if they chose – could, and regularly did.

Into this world of laws and intolerance, Abner Kneeland was born in 1774. Born in Massachusetts, at about age 21 he moved to Vermont, worked as a carpenter, taught school, and served as a Baptist lay preacher. He came across universalist writings, met Hosea Ballou, and became a universalist. At the age of 31 (1805) Kneeland was ordained as a Universalist minister and called as the settled minister in Langdon, New Hampshire. He became active in the New England Universalist General Convention, serving as its standing clerk and as its treasurer. He also served two years in the New Hampshire Legislature. Along with Hosea Ballou he compiled a universalist hymnal, with Kneeland writing 130 of the 410 songs. (Our hymnal has none of them). He subsequently served churches in Charlestown, Massachusetts, Whitestown, New York, Philadelphia (1818) and in 1825 (1825-1827) Prince Street Church in New York City.

During this time, he was as busy as a bee. He served his churches, published a second hymnal, published a new spelling book (The American Pronouncing Spelling Book) which used phonetics and removed all silent letters, edited a monthly magazine (The Philadelphia Universalist Magazine and Christian Messenger) and completed a translation of the Greek New Testament.

Kneeland’s social thought also began to change and he became in the eyes of some a radical. He met and became supportive of the utopian socialist Robert Owen. Owen was a wealthy Scottish industrialist who had made a fortune in cotton mills, but came to see problems in the newly emerging industrial society. Owen called for small socialist communities where people would combine agricultural and manufacturing enterprises, live in prosperity and harmony, and avoid the ravages of a changing world. He purchased 20,000 acres on the banks of the Wabash River in Indiana and established New Harmony. By 1825 about 800 people were living in his new community. Within 2 years New Harmony had failed, but not Owens’ idea. Across America up to 20 Owenite communities were established, including one on the Red River in Texas. But Owen had caused a stir in addressing the inequalities of wealth and the problems of the early 19th century

A friend and fellow traveler with Owen in his radicalism was Francis “Fanny” Wright. In her early 20s, she visited the United States from Scotland and eventually became a US citizen. Concerned with the situation of slavery in America, in 1825 she established an interracial communal society in Tennessee, named Nashoba, where slaves were purchased and then allowed to work off the purchase price of their freedom. As you might imagine, this interracial community in Tennessee was not well received in the South. Rumors circulated of interracial sex, marriage, and free love at Nashoba. On July 4, 1828, Wright shocked much of America when she publicly spoke at a mixed meeting at New Harmony. Like Owen, Wright backed the abolition of slavery, universal suffrage, equal rights for women, public education and cooperative care for all children, and birth control. Wright also attacked capitalism, greed, and religion, becoming known as “the red harlot of infidelity.” Kneeland embraced the radical proposals of Owen and Wright and in 1828 had Fanny Wright speak from his pulpit.

Wright and Owen organized The Association for the Protection of Industry and the Promotion of National Education, a group that sought to establish “state guardianship” of children. Here all children in the country would be fed, clothed, and educated at public expense. Abner Kneeland became president of the association.

Opposition to Kneeland within Universalist churches increased. Many passed resolutions denouncing him as one of their ministers. At the time Universalists themselves were under attack with many conservative Christians fearing their message of universal salvation. After all the thinking went, if there is no punishment in the afterlife for an immoral and licentious life, why should humankind be restrained from living the most immoral life imaginable? This mindset was so pervasive that the state of Connecticut passed a law in 1828 that testimony by Universalists in court was not to be accepted. In May of 1829, having served as a Universalist minister for over 20 years, at the age of 54 Kneeland resigned from the pulpit of his church, never to return to the Universalist fold.

He did not, however, abandon his public career. He moved to Boston and established the First Society of Free Enquiry. The Society of Free Enquiry had Sunday and Wednesday services and both soon drew about 2,000 people. One attendee described the sermons as tending to “ridicule the Christian religion to persuade the congregation that there is no God, no future life, no soul.” Instead of reading from the Bible, Kneeland often read passages from Voltaire or Thomas Paine. On one occasion he read a passage from the Biblical book of Leviticus, passages referring to women’s menstrual cycle and a women being unclean for 7 days. Kneeland screamed in response, “that is not true: women are not unclean anytime. They say this is a good book. I don’t think it is a very good book at all in its attitudes toward women.” He then hurled his Bible down the center aisle where it slammed against the back doors. The Wednesday evening services were festive occasions of singing and dancing. As you might imagine, these antics shocked much of Boston.

Almost immediately upon arriving in Boston Kneeland had also begun to print a newspaper, “The Boston Intelligencer.” He stated that the paper would support the abolition of slavery, the rights of women, public education, and the rights of the laboring classes. Soon it had 2,000 subscribers.

In the second issue Kneeland published a “Marriage Cathecism” which read in part: Q: How long is the marriage vow, covenant, or contract, binding on the parties: A: As long as it exists, let that be longer or shorter. It is morally and virtually binding so long as it is productive of the happiness of the parties immediately concerned and no longer.” A few months later Kneeland wrote that women should have equal rights, even extending to equal pay, stating that “women’s wages should be exactly, per week, per day, or per hour the same as those of men.”

He even supported interracial marriage. In August of 1831 he wrote, “The basic principle of society should be the perfect equality as to rights and privileges, totally regardless of sex, and now I will go one step further, and say, totally regardless of color…What! To marry each other: YES, to marry, if they love or fancy each other.”

In addition, to his radical social positions, in front page headlines, he offered a $1,000 reward to any clergyman who could prove to his satisfaction that Jesus had ever existed and that the four Gospels of the New Testament had truly been written by four men named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Kneeland continued to invite controversial individuals to speak from his pulpit. When William Lloyd Garrison – the polarizing abolitionist – moved to Boston to begin printing his abolitionist paper “The Liberator,” the first place he gave a lecture in Boston was from Kneeland’s lectern. Garrison would later write, “It was left for a society of avowed infidels…not by any of the Christian ministers or churches of Boston…to save the city from the shame of sealing all its doors against the slave’s advocate.”

After two years of a very successful but controversial public presence in Boston, in 1833 he published his “Philosophical Creed.” As was read earlier, he stated, “I believe that the whole universe is nature, and that the word nature embraces the whole universe; that God and nature…are synonymous terms. Hence I am not an atheist, but a Pantheist.” Thus, he clearly separated himself from Christians in Boston.

Within a few weeks Universalist minister and editor Thomas Whittemore challenged Kneeland in his magazine “The Trumpet” and Kneeland responded. Kneeland’s letter to Whittemore was published on December 20, 1833, in the “Boston Intelligencer.” Kneeland wrote:

Dear Sir: You observed to me the other day, that people still consider me a Universalist, and said to me that “if you will acknowledge that you are not, I will publish it.” I told you, in substance that in some respects I am still a Universalist; but that in others, I am not… I still hold to universal philanthropy, universal benevolence, and universal charity, in these respects, I am still a Universalist. Neither do I believe in punishment after death; so in this also I agree with the Universalists. But as it respects all other of their religious notions in relation to another world, or a supposed other state of conscious existence, I do not believe in any of them; so that in this respect, I am no more a Universalist that I am an orthodox Christian. As for instance: 1. Universalists believe in a god which I do not; but believe that their god, with all his moral attributes (aside from nature itself,) is nothing more than a chimera of their own imagination. 2. Universalists believe in Christ, which I do not; but believe that whole story concerning him is as much a fable and a fiction as that of the god Promotheus… 3. Universalists believe in miracles, which I do not; but believe that every pretension to them can either be accounted for on natural principles, or else is to be attributed to mere trick and imposture. 4. Universalists believe in the resurrection of the dead, in immortality and eternal life, which I do not: but believe that all life is mortal; that death is an eternal extinction of life to the individual who possesses it, and that no individual life is, ever was or ever will be eternal. Hence, as Universalists no longer wish to consider me as belonging to their order, as it relates to a belief in things unseen, I hope the above four articles will be sufficient to distinguish me from them and them from me…

Ultimately, that statement…”Universalists believe in a God which I do not” would lead to a trial with Kneeland being convicted and sentenced to jail for 60 days for blasphemy. He would become the last man sentenced to a jail term in this country for this crime.

Between 1834 and 1838 Abner Kneeland would undergo five separate trials for various charges relating to his blasphemy. One of those charges involved articles he had reprinted in his paper what had previously appeared in the Owens – Wright journal “Free Inquiry.” The most shocking article compared beliefs among various peoples. It said, “A Parisian would be surprised to hear that the Hottentots cut out one of the testicles of every little boy; and a Hottentot would be surprised to hear that the Parisians leave every little boy with two. Neither the Parisian nor the Hottentot is astonished at the practice of the other because he finds it unreasonable, but because he finds it differs from his own. The Frenchman will ask why the Hottentots allow their boy’s but one testicle, but that same Frenchman, though he be too stupid to understand the laws of evidence, or too illiterate to apply them to history, firmly believes that Jesus Christ was begotten without any testicles at all.”

This reference to the testicles of Jesus was considered so shocking by four of the five judges that they would not let the passage even be read in court.

The second item was from Kneeland’s paper and ridiculed contemporary concepts of prayer. That article, said in part: “Think of the prayers that are offered up every Lord’s Day in this country…one is asking for one thing, another for another, one for rain, another for dry weather; one for an east wind, another for a west wind…Only think of it seriously for one minute…and then say whether you think it possible that there is such a prayer-hearing and prayer-answering god…? Superstition may answer in the affirmative; philosophy will answer in the negative.”

The most serious charge by far was his letter to Thomas Whittemore in which he proclaimed that he no longer believed in God.

His defense against these charges should make any trial lawyer proud. As far as the reprinted articles were concerned, his lawyer argued that, as a matter of fact, opponents of Kneeland had reprinted the articles themselves to help build a case against him. So, if the act of publishing the articles was the crime, how had those individuals escaped trial?

Kneeland also argued that he had been out of town when the articles were printed, that they had been printed in error, and that he obviously had nothing to do with their publication because they contained spelling errors and that he would never have allowed that.

Kneeland also defended his letter to Thomas Whittemore. In this case he argued punctuation. His statement to Whittemore was “Universalists believe in a God which I do not.” That is, he did not believe in the SAME god as the Universalists. Had he meant to deny the total existence of God, he would have placed a comma after god, making the sentence read, “Universalists believe in a God, (comma) which I do not.” He also proclaimed that not only did he not believe in the God of the Universalists, neither did the members of the jury. After all, they believed in eternal damnation and punishment and the Universalists did not. Nevertheless, Kneeland was convicted and a series of appeals followed, ending in a fifth trial before the Massachusetts Supreme Court which heard the case in 1836. The Supreme Court handed down its decision two years later. On his 64th birthday Abner Kneeland was called before the court to hear that the previous guilty verdict was upheld and that the accused was sentenced to 60 days in jail.

On June 18, 1838, gray-haired, 64 year old Abner Kneeland began his sentence for blasphemy in the Boston common jail. Released on August 17, he was greeted by a cheering crowd of 300 people. Although his release caused a temporary stir, the huge crowds at his gatherings began to drift away. By the following April he announced in his paper that his free inquiry group was to be disbanded and that his supporters should “just go to some Unitarian meeting, for the sake of being in the fashion.”

Kneeland was headed west. By May he was in Iowa, trying to establish a new free thought community he named Salubria. He purchased 230 acres, built a home, and advertised for like-minded thinkers. Only about 10 other families would move to Salubria and the community did not grow as he had hoped. They were accepted in the surrounding area, with one neighbor merely saying that the inhabitants at the community just read a lot of books. Kneeland taught school briefly, became chair of the Van Buren County Democrats, and ran unsuccessfully for the state legislature. In August of 1844 at the age of 70 Abner Kneeland died.

So, where do we stand 166 years after the death of this Universalist minister and social critic? Have we left behind the mindset and statutes that in 1838 would send a man to jail for 60 days due to his beliefs and statements? In 1961 (Torcaso v Watkins) the US Supreme Court ruled that there can be no religious test for any office. Although I know of no one who has been tried for blasphemy recently, several states still have statutes on their books -although they have no legal standing- that allow discrimination in religious beliefs and practices. These states include Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, North Carolina and Texas. The North Carolina law is especially of interest to us UUs. It provides “The following persons shall be disqualified for office. First, any person who shall DENY the being of Almighty God.” In Asheville, North Carolina, journalist Cecil Bothwell, a member of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Asheville, was elected to the city council. He was sworn into office using an affirmation that did not include an oath to God or a Bible. Some local citizens tried unsuccessfully to have him removed from office due to the religious clause in the state constitution. The local newspaper in a satirical cartoon referred to Bothwell as our “Village Atheist.” With this unexpected notoriety, Mr. Bothwell now often travels to UU churches throughout the Southeast telling his story.

Even our own state of Texas has an exclusionary clause in the state constitution that has never been removed. It states, “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this state; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, PROVIDED he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.” Anyone who denies the existence of a supreme being, therefore, cannot hold public office in Texas. However – and this is purely conjectural – if there were a move to amend the Texas Constitution and remove this phrase, what do you think would happen? What type of opposition and rhetoric would emerge? Would a majority of Texas voters remove the requirement to believe in a Supreme Being or would they vote to retain it?

Aside from the legal technicalities of freedom of religion, what about our personal actions? This summer (2010) a Muslim congregation in New York City and a developer plan to build a worship center about two blocks from the Twin Towers where the 9-11 attacks took place. Due to this being an Islamic center, a firestorm of protest has erupted. One has called this proposed building a “sacrilege.” Another has proclaimed that the center is meant to “celebrate” the 9-11 murders. According to syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts (7-22-10), Sarah Palin has called upon moderate Muslims to “refudiate” the idea, although she presumably meant that they should “repudiate” it. When President Obama defended the right of this religious community to built the center, he was attacked. Today, (August 22, 2010) there is a planned public protest in New York City to oppose this center. Some construction workers have announced that they will not work on the job.

Freedom of religion is only one part of a life of tolerance and respect for others. Freedom of religion begins with each of us, in our own hearts, with a lack of arrogance in our own beliefs, and a respect for the beliefs of others. We UUs include that concept in our Seven Principles when we affirm “the right of conscience…in society at large.” That concept is central to who we are.

Today we will have a church-wide discussion of Greg Mortensen’s fine book, Three Cups of Tea. I hope you can attend this discussion which will be led by Religious Education. Toward to end of the book, Mortensen explains why he has spent almost 20 years building schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan. He says, “What motivates me to do this? The answer is simple: When I look into the eyes of the children in Pakistan and Afghanistan, I see my own children’s eyes full of wonder-and I hope that we will each do our part to leave them all a legacy of peace instead of the perpetual cycle of violence, war, terrorism, racism, and bigotry that we adults have yet to conquer.” Freedom of religion, if truly felt in our hearts and applied to our lives, allows more than the right to believe and worship as we choose without being thrown in jail. It also helps combat religious hatred, violence, and bigotry.

Abner Kneeland was a man ahead of his times. He was a bold, but divisive, figure. During his first trial the judge asked his attorney that if the defendant was not an atheist, then what God did he believe in? The attorney retorted, “That is an affair between him and God, and not between him and your honor.” That is the way it should be. Abner Kneeland’s stand for freedom of religion in the 1830s is a message that the world still needs to hear today.

Thank you, Abner Kneeland for your beliefs and for the courage to stand your ground. Thank you for a message that the world needed to hear then and needs to hear today. Thank you for seeing more clearly than most of those about you. Thank you for standing for freedom of religion. May we do the same. Thus, let it be.

PARTING WORDS

We are taught (Matt 5:16) that no one lights a candle and hides it under a basket, but rather places it on a candlestick so that all may see. Let your light so shine that it may show the pathway to those around you. Go in love. Go in peace. Amen

Forgiveness is for Giving

August 15, 2010 by Sasha Lorenzo Posted in Audio available, Guest Speakers, Mark Skrabacz, Sermons

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Rev. Mark Skrabacz

August 15, 2010

Elwin Hope Wilson is 73 years old, lives in Rock Hill, South Carolina and suffers from severe diabetes. Last year he became something of a celebrity because, after a lifetime of racist rhetoric and activity, he had a change of heart.

As a young man, Wilson assaulted civil rights Freedom Riders. Later in life he threatened a real estate agent who had sold a nearby home to a black family, and another he time vehemently protested the desegregation of the local cemetery where his parents were interred. On yet another occasion he hung a black doll by the neck in his front yard and dared his neighbors to remove it. He regularly embarrassed his children and grandchildren by loudly repeating racial epithets in restaurants and other public places.

But then, last year, all of that changed. Having decided that his previous behavior had been horribly misguided, Wilson began the painful process of issuing apologies. He traveled to Congressman John Lewis’ Washington DC office to personally apologize for punching and knocking down the former Freedom Rider in 1961. He has visited black churches and offered public declarations of repentance. He has sought reconciliation with black citizens in his community.

Many have greeted Elwin Wilson’s apologies with surprise and pleasure, but others have been more skeptical. As one Freedom Rider allowed: “In the back of my mind I just keep thinking, ‘Why now?'” Why now, indeed. Although it’s always hazardous to render judgments about another person’s motives, one thing is clear: Elwin Hope Wilson, beset with serious health problems, was scared. “I’m going to hell,” he despairingly told a friend, to which his friend replied: “The Bible says that ‘If you truly ask forgiveness and you mean it in your heart, you can be saved.'” At that moment Wilson felt that perhaps he could escape the hellfire he believed was awaiting him.

So, what are we to make of Elwin Wilson’s attempt to reconcile himself to his victims? How legitimate were his apologetic gestures?

There can be no doubt that the man had a great deal to be sorry about and that a sincere and heart-felt apology for his egregious offenses was in order. And there can also be no doubt that Elwin Wilson went the extra mile. Like those medieval penitents who were ordered by Catholic confessors to undertake lengthy, arduous pilgrimages in order to atone for their sins, Wilson has made a strenuous effort to demonstrate remorse in many places and before many people, including members of his own family.

Elwin Wilson’s apologies have made him the object of considerable attention, and now he receives regular requests to speak publically about his conversion Ð a role he doesn’t really relish. He isn’t interested in publicity and, having said he was sorry, just wants to be free of a painful past and gain some measure of hope for the future.

This brings up at least one issue having to do with forgiveness. If the injured party senses that the apology is not an expression of empathy and compassion for their suffering, but only an attempt to assuage the perpetrator’s pain, it may fall on deaf ears. A genuine apology focuses on the feelings of other people rather than how the one who apologizes is going to benefit in the end. The words must communicate the desire not so much to be ‘saved’ but to be in right relationship, which is why Elwin Wilson’s apology to people of color, though powerful, still feels unsatisfying.

“Genuine” or “authentic” apologies include these essential elements:

A clear admission of fault or blameworthiness for specific injuries and, without excuse of justification, an unambiguous acceptance of responsibility; A sincere expression of remorse and regret for the damage our words or actions caused; An appropriate offer of reparation or restitution for said damage; A commitment not to repeat such behavior in the future.

Yet if the apology is half-hearted or seems inauthentic, how might it be reflected? The victim might simply say, “I’m sorry, but I need a better apology than that” which invites the offender to engage in more self-scrutiny and deliver a new message in which all or at least more of the important elements are present.

Now, you can say anything you want to yourself or to other people about forgiveness. But we’ll probably all agree, saying doesn’t necessarily make it so.

True forgiveness requires much more. It requires mourning, transformation and insight — some (as in the Jewish tradition) would add restitution, too. For while forgiveness may be freeing, it isn’t cheap. One way to misconstrue forgiveness is to promote a cheap and easy version of it.

You see, forgiveness is not the same as forgetting. Past experiences and the pain they cause have a great deal to teach us, so that we can try to avoid those patterns, and better yet, change them in the future. For forgiveness to function in a life-enhancing way, it more often requires remembering rather than forgetting.

Forgiveness is not approving or condoning. Forgiving someone often involves making some effort to understand them, but even if we come to fully understand them, we do not thereby conclude that their actions were acceptable. True understanding cannot occur when I in any way deny, minimize, justify, or condone the actions that harmed me.

So let’s be clear about a few givens. Forgiveness is not cheap, it’s not easy. Forgiveness is not the same as forgetting, or condoning, and it is not a form of self-sacrifice.

As we move into considering what forgiveness actually is, I’d like to invite you to get in touch with a situation or a wound that still has a hold on you; that diminishes you. I’d like to move this sermon out of the abstract and into the practical. I’ll give you a moment of silence to go within. (Pause)

What wound still has a hold on you? Some of you may have chosen yourself as a focus. Which brings up a good point: we all need our own forgiveness, for things we have done. And looking at it from another perspective, we need to forgive ourselves also about the situations in which WE have been hurt. We need to forgive ourselves for not having been able to stop whatever happened — for having limits to our control. For not having more information or making different choices. We are often reluctant to admit just how much pain we have and how much our life has been altered. In the aftermath, we have to engage our own feelings of vengeance and so on. This requires bountiful compassion for oneself, even as we hold ourselves accountable for our past actions.

I imagine that some of you chose another person or set of people who hurt you. We are in great need of intra-personal forgiveness. Showing compassion for the perpetrators of injustice or pain is a tall order. It’s a natural human response to ask, “Why should we be concerned about compassion for the perpetrators?” We feel we must focus our efforts on those who have suffered the injustice, not those who’ve caused it. But there’s no such thing as wholeness for me or wholeness for you or wholeness for “The Deserving”. Either there’s wholeness for everyone, or there’s no wholeness. Compassion that has to be earned by good behavior isn’t compassion.

Injustice and lack of forgiveness wounds the perpetrator as well as the target. And our compassion isn’t like some scarce medicine that we have to hoard lest we run out. Compassion begets more compassion. Every time we show compassion, the doors of our hearts swing open wider.

And this is not about condoning oppression or going easy on those who are hurtful. Everyone has to take responsibility for the consequences of his actions. We can insist on that and at the same time show compassion toward the perpetrator.

And I imagine some of you chose a Higher Power, however you experience it. Many of us have anger at the larger structure of things because of unfair personal losses we have experienced. I know that it was this sort of forgiveness that was most on my mind as I wrote this sermon. I remember when I lost my father as a young man. It was almost unbearable, and I was so angry. I wasn’t done with the relationship with my Dad. I cried and raged and cried and raged for a year. Eventually, I got the lesson that I had to forgive. I had to, once again, let go of the way I thought things were supposed to be, how things ought to work. I had to come back into relationship with Life itself. So some of us may haven chosen the Universe itself as what we need to forgive.

We know that letting go is a difficult practice. Yet for those who have let go, isn’t it amazing to know how that experience makes room for something new to show up. We have to let go of something that may be killing us in order for new life to emerge.

As I come to the end of my remarks, I want to emphasize what forgiveness is. Forgiveness is a turning to the good in the face of a wrongdoing or injustice. It is a merciful restraint from dwelling destructively in resentment or in thoughts of vengeance. Not that resentment or thoughts of vengeance are always bad . . . Anger need not vanish for forgiveness to be real; it need only cease to prevail as the main focus of our attention. Forgiveness involves the overcoming of injustice with good. We must come to wish ourselves, or others, or the universe well. In spite of everything, we wish betterment and flourishing of the subject of forgiveness. As we give the gift of forgiveness, we ourselves move toward healing.

Forgiveness is a process. In fact, the Institute for Forgiveness Studies in Madison, Wisconsin, has determined that forgiveness is four-phase process with twenty steps! I won’t go over the twenty steps, but their four phases are actually quite helpful.

The first of the four is the “Uncovering Phase.” In this phase, the individual truly encounters the pain that has resulted from a deep injury. Feelings of anger or even hatred may be present. Confronting these emotions and honestly understanding the injury is emotionally distressing, but it is the beginning of healing. So when we are experiencing the pain of an injury, we are often more assisted by a friend who helps us engage the pain and understand the injury than by one who initially encourages us to forgive.

The second phase is called the “Decision Phase,” and when I think of this stage, I think of an old story from the people of our First Nations. In this one a grandfather is speaking to his grandson. He says, “There are two wolves fighting inside all of us – the wolf of anger and vengeance, and the wolf of compassion and forgiveness.” The grandson asks, “Which one will win?” Grandfather replies, “The one we feed.”

In the Decision Phase, after coming in touch with the pain, the anger and vengeance, the individual realizes that to continue to focus on the injury and the injurer may cause more unnecessary suffering. The individual entertains the idea of forgiveness as a healing strategy. The individual, then, commits to forgiving the injurer who has caused such pain. Complete forgiveness is not yet realized, but the injured individual has decided to explore forgiveness and to take initial steps in the direction of full forgiveness. He starts weaning the wolf of vengeance, and actively nurturing the health of the wolf of compassion and forgiveness. In so doing, the individual enters the “Work Phase.” Feeding the urge toward forgiveness may involve forming new ways of thinking about the perpetrator.

An adult I know who was abused by her mother as a child went from seeing her mother’s abuse as malevolent and powerful to seeing it as weak and pitiful. She strove to understand her mother’s childhood and the suffering of abuse at the hands of her father, and put her own injurious events in context by understanding the context and pressure her mother was under. This new perspective did not excuse her mother, but helped the daughter see her as a member of the wounded human community. Some significant amount of empathy and compassion was generated.

In the “work phase,” this woman also did the work of accepting the pain she bore as a result of her mother’s actions. She had no sense that she deserved the pain, and knew it had been unjustly given. Still, she decided to not pass the pain on to others, nor very importantly to pass it back to her mother. Eventually this woman began to offer goodwill directly to her mother, and there was some reconciliation. In so doing, this woman moved toward growth and toward embracing life again.

The fourth phase is that of “Deepening.” The individual realizes a gain of emotional relief from the process of forgiveness. They may be able to find some kind of meaning that has emerged through their bearing of pain. They may discover a renewed purpose in life and an active concern for others, which they did not fully realize was missing. “Thus, the forgiver discovers the paradox of forgiveness: as we serve others by giving them the gifts of mercy, generosity, and love, we ourselves are healed.” This inspires today’s sermon title: “Forgiveness is for Giving.”

In closing, forgiveness is hard work and a long process. Forgiveness is free, yet it is not cheap. It may be a good idea to visit our injuries and resentments regularly to see if forgiveness is in order. I invite you to choose one area in the coming week in which you’d like to walk a little further on the path toward forgiveness. A sage once prayed, “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.” Indeed, may our trespasses be forgiven by those we have harmed, and may we be the first to do the difficult and whole-making work of forgiveness. May it be so.

Born to Run

August 8, 2010 by Sasha Lorenzo Posted in Audio available, Eric Hepburn, Guest Speakers, Sermons

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Eric Hepburn

August 8, 2010

Text of this sermon is not available. Click the play button to listen.

Surrender as Spiritual Practice

August 1, 2010 by Sasha Lorenzo Posted in Guest Speakers, Ron Phares, Sermons

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Ron Phares

August 1, 2010

Text of this sermon is not available. Click the play button to listen.

What Do Fundamentalists Know About Religion That Unitarians Have Forgotten (and Need to Relearn)?

July 26, 2010 by Sasha Lorenzo Posted in Audio available, Gary Bennett, Guest Speakers, Sermons

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Gary Bennett

Member, First Unitarian Church of Austin

Sermon, delivered Sunday, July 25, 2010

The title of this sermon is a bit deceptive. Today I wouldn’t use the term “fundamentalist” to mean evangelical, conservative or traditional, and these are the religious groups I really want to talk about. Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the Saudi Arabian government are fundamentalist, as are Pat Robertson, various recent presidents of the Southern Baptist Convention and a host of others who have done such outrageous things as praise terrorist attacks on Americans, plot political takeovers in church services, foment the murder of abortion providers, spit on mourners at funerals for fallen soldiers and advocate revolutionary violence against the United States. They are a recent phenomenon, a cancer on most major world religions, an attack on all modern thought and values; they are Fascists who masquerade using traditional religious language. In contrast, the denomination I was raised in, Southern Baptists before 1979, was by basic principle apolitical; members tended to be politically conservative, but people like Jimmy Carter, Bill Moyers and my parents had no trouble fitting in.

Why should we be interested? These are, after all, the traditions that many of us feel we outgrew; if anything, we think we have a bit to teach them. Perhaps we do, but demographics have not been kind to us in recent decades. We are grouped with liberal or “main line” Protestant groups, which also include the Episcopal, Methodist, Lutheran and Presbyterian churches. We all share one problem today: we can’t convince our own children that what we do is worth preserving. UUs have mostly made up for these losses with adult conversion, which has so far kept us out of the other denominations’ apparent race to extinction; but we are still in trouble. Politicians have taken notice, of course; and where in 1960 it was main line Protestant voices that they used for moral cover, today it is usually conservative Catholics, evangelical Protestants or Mormons, even outright Fundamentalists, that dominate the public forum. It is not that these groups are especially successful at proselytizing our children, who mostly become unchurched and thus invisible as far as the political culture goes; but the conservatives at least are keeping most of their own children. For some groups, like the high birth rate Mormons, that alone would be enough for rapid growth. If these changes in American culture and politics bother us, and I think they should, we have lots of serious ‘splainin’ to do. We think that we have a better approach to religious experience, but it is they who do the better job of convincing the children that what they have is important.

From the beginning, human beings have been bonded into groups by all believing in the same “six impossible things before breakfast.” Once these groups started stepping on one another’s toes by living together in cities or traveling to far places, religion began to be something distinct from the overall culture; religion was where you met with your support group. You would still prefer to shut up those fools who disagreed if you had the power to do so, but the religious group helped you to endure if you could not. Christianity by the 4th century had its own share of crazy ideas and also the power of the Roman state to shut up everybody who disagreed. Despite the fall of the Western Empire, this state of things persisted in Europe until a century of religious wars between Catholics and Protestants ended in the 17th century in a peace of exhaustion; neither group had been quite able to exterminate the other. By the late 18th century in places like the English colonies in America, toleration came to be seen as a virtue in itself; the idea was that different religious groups could scream all that they liked, but had to leave the swords, battle-axes and torture chambers at home.

Today UUs profess not to feel threatened by all these competing ideas, believing that our ideas are strong enough to survive out in the marketplace. Our advertising campaigns try to persuade the unchurched that they are very much like us; we are at one with the larger intellectual world, with science, human reason and American moral values. But traditional religious groups feel more alienated from the overall world of ideas. Their beliefs are quite distinct from those of the larger world and from those of each other. Small doctrinal differences are assumed to be important. For us Baptists, we asserted our lack of a creed, but at the same time accused other Christians of getting the rite of baptism all wrong. We, like most traditional Christians, believed that salvation was by the grace of God, rather than by good deeds of human beings; but I and my Church of Christ cousins, little lawyers all of us, went round and round on whether Grace was enough or whether participation in the rite of Baptism by the One True Church — that was them — was also necessary. What, said I, if you are saved by grace on Monday, but die before you are safely baptized in church the following Sunday? I will spare you various other Great Ideas Seminars we conducted. The point is, if the UU view of matters is pretty much the same as that of most of the secular world, why bother with church at all? Why not sleep in Sunday mornings, read a good book, go to a public lecture? If you are blessed to move in an academic environment or live in a cosmopolitan city of great cultural offerings, why do you need a UU church at all? But if you are an Evangelical, you will not get much reinforcement of your “six impossible beliefs” except in your own church group. You will need to spend a lot of time there, perhaps attending every time the church doors are open; and at other times, you might want to limit your socializing to other church members.

Then there is moral behavior. For UUs, ethics is about helping others: helping the poor, the sick, the elderly, children and other victims of social injustice; when we collect “pennies for peace” and try to build schools for girls in remote Asian villages, we are acting in the great ethical tradition. We have support in the teachings of Jesus, of the Hebrew prophets, of Mohammed, of Confucius and of many other seminal religious teachers. But for evangelical religions, most of these things are not so much morals but political issues on which good Christians can differ. As a young Baptist, most of my time in church and Sunday School seemed to be spent in being warned against various “gateway” evils: gambling was wrong because it led to playing cards, promiscuous sex was wrong because it led to dancing and smoking marijuana was wrong because it led to tobacco. There were never any lessons on the evils of racial discrimination, poverty in the midst of wealth, unjust wars, the rape of the world’s resources or other environmental disasters. Religious morality was about individual perfection, about keeping the temple of your body pure for God. UU moral positions tend to integrate us into the larger society in which we operate; evangelical Protestant positions tend to separate us into little self-absorbed clusters. And these all become more reasons to structure your life around other church members, people you can socialize with and not imperil your immortal soul.

Traditional religions require constant work on the part of their members. Orthodox Judaism has seemingly an endless list of requirements of diet, clothing and other rituals. Jewish friends have tried to explain to me how the laws of kosher are perfectly sensible; it seems the bans on eating pork, shellfish and mixing meat with dairy products were all put together by ancient nutritionists, protecting people from trichinosis, oysters out of season — do Hebrew months provide any rules comparable to r’s being safe? — and we all know the grim truth about eating fast food bacon cheeseburgers. Stuff and nonsense: the lawgivers wanted people to have to think about their religion every single day, in even the most trivial actions, just as my Baptist morality was designed to remind me of who I was, not to accomplish good. For Jews the result was a tough faith that people preserved in even the most extreme circumstances, for thousands of years of living in isolated ghettos surrounded by hostile societies. Few things have threatened Jewish identity more than living in religiously tolerant America over the last generation or so, where their declining numbers are similar to those of liberal Protestants. A rabbi once told me he considered UUs the greatest threat to Jewish survival, as we gave shelter to couples in mixed Jewish/Christian marriages! In an old fable, the sun and the north wind bet on which is the more powerful. The north wind tries to blow a traveller’s cloak off, but he only wraps it ever more tightly about himself; then the sun comes out, warms the land, and the traveller removes the cloak voluntarily.

Other religions have also found ways of making life tough for members. Devout Moslems have to stop whatever they are doing five times a day to humble themselves before God; the fasting month of Ramadan and the required ultimate pilgrimage to Mecca are also hard. Mormons require two full years’ missionary work from every young member as a rite of passage into adulthood. I have seen firsthand how much more serious and religiously committed a person can become after that experience. And then there are the Amish, who make their religious beliefs central to everything that they do in daily life.

And let us not forget the early radical Protestants. Medieval Hell might have been a terrible fate waiting after death, filled with every juicy torture and humiliation a fevered imagination could come up with; but at least Catholics could feel safe as long as they remained obedient to and in good standing with the Church. These Protestants took upon themselves the burden of finding the way to avoid Hell, without ever being sure they were right. They became puritanical, self-denying, hard-working people who, by all work and no play and by avoiding idle hands, the Devil’s own workshop, might hope to escape damnation. There was of course no room for compassion in this — if other people were mostly bound for eternal torture after death, any extra suffering they encountered in this life was trivial anyway — so it tended to generate a lot of excess wealth that came to be called capital by economists and ultimately to our rich modern society, all as a trivial side effect. Children brought up in such hard faiths knew the seriousness and importance of what was going on, and usually continued to practice them in adulthood.

I haven’t talked as if the theological content mattered much in the success or failure of these religions. Not entirely true: some things obviously do matter a great deal. The doctrine of Hell tends to grab one’s attention; for an imaginative child who has been exposed to it, anxieties can last a life time, even if he has rejected the idea of it in his head. Heaven is more like an afterthought for most believers, whether it is supposed to be souls singing hymns for eternity — a prospect mercilessly satirized by Mark Twain — or if is supposed to be filled with the reward of 40 virgins — which can double as the place bad virgins go to be punished, some suggest. Anyway, whatever goodies await, it is all kind of a bonus to go along with the biggie of avoiding Hell.

Above all, successful religions demand the belief that there is something that is greater than us, something before which we must humble ourselves. Arrogance is the opposite of real religious sentiment, something to remember the next time you encounter a swaggering televangelist with an obvious financial or political agenda. That we humble ourselves is more important than what we humble ourselves to. Our own tradition is mixed. Universalists supposedly thought God too good to condemn humanity to Hell, and Unitarians, that humans were too good to be condemned. If I have to choose, given what I have seen of human behavior, I really, really hope the Universalists were right.

I started by asking what traditional religious groups know, and what we can learn from them. Some lessons we will reject out of hand. I cannot imagine UUs declaring war on science and reason. Nor do we want to limit our concept of morality to keeping our bodies healthy while ignoring the world’s problems, and some of us even believe that “purity’s a noble yen, and very restful every now and then.” But I think we do need to make the practice of Unitarian Universalism more difficult, if we want to survive. We need an integrity about our lives, a sense that we are the same people, with the same values, on weekdays as Sundays. We need to be in covenant with one another, so that our disagreements may be resolved without injury to any, and so that members always feel that being here or being with other UUs in any situation is a safe place. We MUST give more; it’s hard to believe your faith is important to you when your giving is so embarrassingly poor compared with conservative churches, so low that they have severely crippled the mission of your church. I know how hard my Baptist parents struggled to tithe — that means 10% of gross income, if any of you are in doubt — in what were often very grim circumstances. Our own household falls far short of that standard. But Jesus’ words are still relevant: where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. Contribute to the church’s mission AND to charities AND to just political causes that the church itself cannot involve itself in; contribute money AND time. If Moslems can stop to pray five times a day and Orthodox Jews can expend the effort to keep kosher at every meal, can we UUs not require ourselves to do at least one thing every day that reminds us who we are?

And we must also make religion harder for our children. How we strive to keep them entertained; it would be unthinkable to require them to sit through a boring old church service, or so we believe. Nonsense. Most children will live up or down to consistent adult expectations. Consider family discussions of moral issues; the “pennies for peace” project would seem a perfect opportunity to talk about what the problems are, and what Greg Mortenson is arguing in Three Cups of Tea are solutions. The long term feedback will come in part by what happens in rural Asia, but also by what part of you your children decide in adulthood is worth carrying forward. And that, above all, is what UUs must learn once again about religion, or die.

Mission Possible

July 18, 2010 by Sasha Lorenzo Posted in Audio available, Guest Speakers, Sermons

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Nell Newton, Eric Stimmel, Chris Jimmerson

July 18, 2010

Leaders of First UU Austin present our new mission statement and introduce our new interim minister, Ed Brock.

“At First UU Church of Austin we gather in community to nourish souls, transform lives and do justice.”

Text of this service is not available. Click the play button to listen.

Tiger Woods and the Beer Cart Girl

July 11, 2010 by Sasha Lorenzo Posted in Audio available, Guest Speakers, Sermons

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Timothy B. Tutt

Pastor, United Christian Church

July 11, 2010

First UU Church of Austin

4700 Grover Ave., Austin, TX 78756

www.austinuu.org

Sermon

Some of you have looked at my sermon title in the bulletin and you think you know where I’m headed with this sermon, “Tiger Woods and the Beer Cart Girl.” Given the Sports news the past few months about Tiger and his off-the-course behavior, you assume you know what I might say this morning. After all, the bulletin also says I’m the pastor of a Christian Church and you know how those Christians are about sex. All I have to say is, “You dirty-minded Unitarians.” I’m not going to talk about sex at all.

But I do want to tell you a story about Tiger Woods and the beer cart girl. First, I may need to explain to you non-golfers – and I’m not much of golfer myself – about beer cart girls. Many golf courses hire young, attractive women to drive around the course selling beer from a golf cart. I know that’s sexist. And I know that’s exploiting women. I didn’t invent the practice; I’m just reporting it. I can also say I’ve never heard of a beer cart boy, but as I tell this story, if you would like to change the gender of my character you are welcome to do that. As I said, beer cart girls are mostly hired for their looks, their charm, and they’re ability to sell cold beverages to hot golfers. So, let’s take an imaginary trip to the links. Tiger Woods is the world’s greatest golfer. He’s won 95 professional tournaments, 4 Masters, 4 PGA Championships, 23 U.S. Opens. He’s the first golfer ever to hold all four professional major championship titles at the same time.

But recently, Tiger has slumped a bit. That happens, I suppose, when your spouse finds out you’re cheating and beats you with a golf club. And the tawdry affairs of your sex life are national news.

So, Tiger goes out to a course to brush up a bit. He needs to get his groove back. So, he goes to a course to practice. Something is just not right. His drives are short, his chips aren’t so chipper, his puts peter out. There he stands, the champion, defeated and frustrated, when up drives the beer cart girl. Now, as I said, beer cart girls aren’t hired for their golfing skills. They’re hired to sell beer with a smile and a laugh. But let’s say this beer cart girls drives up, hops off the cart and says, “Hey, Tiger, if you turn your front foot in just a bit, choke up a quarter-inch on your grip, and drop your back shoulder just a hair, your drive will be straighter. I’ve been thinking,” says the beer cart girl, “and maybe you should switch from a nine-iron to a seven-iron on the fairway.”

Imagine Tiger Woods, the youngest golfer ever to complete the Grand Slam … Tiger Woods, who was golfing on the Tonight Show when he was three … imagine Tiger Woods, the youngest Masters’ champion ever … getting golf advice from the beer cart girl.

Tiger Woods has won 111 Million dollars playing golf. Imagine him getting golfing advice from the beer cart girl, who works for tips. Imagine him saying to the ESPN reporters, “My game is picking up because I got some really great advice from the beer cart girl.” Some off you may remember back to the 1980 Presidential Debate when Jimmy Carter was asked a question about nuclear weapons, and he began his answer by saying, “I was talkin’ to mah daughta Amy the otha day…” Commentators just howled. Imagine the President of the United States getting advice on nuclear weapons from his ten year-old daughter.

That’s not how the world works, right?

Golf pros don’t get advice from beer cart girls. Presidents don’t get advice from fourth graders.

We have a sense of who is right and who is powerful and who is in charge and who is important. We listen to those people, right?

Let me tell you another story. This story is from the Hebrew scriptures. It’s from the Book of Kings, the portion that Christians call Second Kings.

(Parenthetically, let me say that I grew up a Southern Baptist in East Texas. And in the tradition of my growing up, this is where the preacher would pause to say, “Turn with me in your Bible to the Book of Second Kings.” My hunch is that the likelihood of Unitarian Universalist having a Bible at church is about as likely as Tiger Woods getting golf advice from the beer cart girl. Nonetheless, if you’d like to follow along on your Blackberry or IPhone, please log on to Second Kings, Chapter 5…)

In Second Kings Chapter 5, we meet a man named Naaman. Naaman was a general in the Aramean army. The Arameans were the vicious enemies of the Israelites. The Book of Second Kings says that Naaman was “a mighty warrior,” but he suffered from leprosy.

Now, along the way, the Arameans, on one of their raids, had captured a young girl captive from Israel. This girl was a salve to General Naaman’s wife And one day, this young slave girl said to Mrs. Naaman – the writer of Second Kings tells it in such poetic language – the young slave girl says, to Naaman’s wife: “If only my lord were with the prophet who is in Samaria! The prophet would cure him of his leprosy.”

To condense the story a bit. Naaman decides to take the slave girl’s advice. Naaman goes to Israel, takes a wagon-full of money with him from the king of the ArameansÑafter all, when you’re hoping to get a cure from your enemies, imagine what a little bribe can do.

So Naaman, the Aramean general with leprosy, goes to find the Jewish prophet Elisha.

There are a multitude of angles we could explore in this text: There’s the issue of bribery in military campaigns. Seems like some things never change. There’s the issue of suddenly discovering that your enemies may have the cure you need. Heck, we could even wander off into a discussion of leprosy in the ancient Middle EastÑbut we haven’t had lunch yet, so maybe we should save that.

The issue I would like for you to ponder for bit is this: Naaman – the great general, the mighty warrior, the conqueror of nations – following the advice of the slave girl, a prisoner, a child, a nobody. Naaman was the Aramean version of George Washington or Dwight Eisenhower or David Petraeus. He was a “somebody.” He was in the news, he had his name carved on stone tablets. The slave girl? We don’t even know her name. She was a nobody. And she was triply cursed – a female, young, and a slave – in a day and age that gave few rights to any of the three.

But the writer of the Book of Kings says that Naaman loaded up the caravan and headed off to find Elisha, following the advice of the slave girl.

What if the world were really like that?

What if we paid attention to the nobodies? Or even better, what if the nobodies were suddenly in charge?

I just returned from a week in Ecuador. A group of people from our congregation and from Wildflower UU, along with some folks from the UU Fellowship traveled to Ecuador together for a mission project, a service project.

We worked at a church in the village of Cachimuel, a community of Kichwa Indians, nestled on a steep slope of the Andean foothills. The people of Cachimuel, the Native Americans, are fairly poor people by our standards. Their village has only had running water for 12 years. I saw one tractor and two cars in the entire village. They use outhouses. Pigs and cows and donkeys and sheep wander around in the streets. I didn’t see a child with a single DSI or Xbox or Gameboy. Their clothes were often grimy.

But you know what? They invited us into their homes and served us coffee and tea. This weathered Kichwa woman welcomed us into a room where she was kneeling on the floor and beating reeds flat with a rock and making mats. And she gave me one, because she is a generous.

She was hammering reed mats with a rock, and she gave me one: Because she is generous. Me? I’m neither that hard-working nor that generous, I’m afraid. Another woman was squatting down on the front porch of the church on our first day at work. We were scraping and sanding off old paint. It wasn’t terribly work, but it was dusty and dirty and we were tired. This tiny Kichwa Indian woman, with several teeth missing, was sitting by this big, beat-up aluminum bowl. And as we walked out the door, she invited us to bend down, and she poured warm water to clean our hands. She had heated that water over a fire, carried that big pot to that porch, and was washing our hands.

We’re supposed to be the “somebodies,” right? After all, both Barack Obama and Sarah Palin say we’re the greatest nation on earth. We’re General Naaman from the Book of Kings. But maybe hubris is our leprosy.

Last week, I saw the slave girl, maybe no longer the captives, but still the “nobodies,” poor Indian dirt farmers, clinging to their back-mountain ways – showing me a hospitality and a generosity that I need to learn. Not so much giving me advice to follow, but offering examples to emulate.

Before my wife, Amy, and I moved back to Texas ten years ago, we lived in Washington, DC. There is a remarkable church in DC called Church of the Savior. It is a decentralized congregation, made up of about a dozen smaller churches. Each of the smaller churches has a particular focus. One church focuses on the arts, one focuses on issues of addiction and recovery. But one of the churches focuses on diversity. People must join that church in pairs. To join that church, you must join in tandem with someone who is different than you, someone who is “other.” If you are poor, you must join with someone who is rich. If you are white, you must join with someone who is black. General Naaman would join it with the slave girl. Tiger Woods might join with the beer cart girl. The purpose of that church is to create relationships that break down barriers, where people live with and learn from each other. Rich learning from poor, educated learning from uneducated, old learning from young, powerful learning from powerless.

I have many friends here at First Unitarian Universalist Church. Kathyrn Govier. Brent Baldwin. Donna and Derek Howard. Carol Ginn and several others were in class that I led at UT. It’s really a pleasure to be among so many friends this this morning. I have long been an admirer of this congregation. I am honored to be invited into this pulpit again this morning. With all of those pleasantries aside, let me say, Maybe, in some way, First Unitarian Universalist Church is like General Naaman. You’re smart, you’re well-educated, you’re important, you’re wealthy. You’re powerful in this city. You’re the “somebodies.”

But maybe you have a leprosy of sorts as well.

I know this congregation has gone through a long period of soul-searching, self-evaluation, internal examination. That is important. You are building bridges to the future and having vision-values-and-missions meeting. You’ve had consultants and committees and coffee conversations. Those things may be helpful. But make sure you aren’t just putting a Band-Aid over your leprosy. As you think about your future as a church, are you willing to listen to the nobodies? Are you willing to hear the powerless? Are you willing to load up a wagon-full of gold to follow the advice of the slave girl?

The first three principles of the Unitarian Universalist Association are impressive. The first three UU principles say that you affirm and promote: the inherent worth and dignity of every person; justice, equity and compassion in human relations; acceptance of one another…

Do you really? Do you really affirm the inherent worth of every person? Earlier, I mentioned Sarah Palin and Barack Obama. Do you really affirm the worth of both of them?

Or, what if this slave girl walked off the pages of Second Kings into First UU? What if she was a poor, immigrant who had suffered at the hands of a brutal government? What if she didn’t speak your language? What if she had never heard of yoga or philosophical inquiry or the yew grove moon ritual? I know you would give her canned goods, and you’d probably hire her to clean your home, but would you affirm her inherent worth as a member of this congregation?

Would you make her a Trustee if she’d never heard of Robert’s Rules of Order? Are you really compassionate in all your relations? The second principle says you are. Or do you try to out-vote each other, out-maneuver each other, out-talk each other? What if you gave up strategic planning and, instead, squatted out on the sidewalk with a big, banged-up aluminum pot of warm water and washed each other’s hands – or maybe even your feet – as a sign and symbol of compassion and caring?

You accept one another. Principle three says so. But, do you really? Would you accept the beer cart girl, as readily as you would accept a sociology professor? Would you accept a crack addict living under a bridge, as readily as you would accept that cute young couple that drives their new Prius past that bridge every day? Would you accept the day laborer named Raphael who doesn’t speak much English, as readily as you would accept the activist who has appointed herself to speak on Raphael’s behalf?

General Naaman, with his leprosy, loaded up a wagon of gold to go to find Elisha to see if the prophet can cure him of his disease. So, what happened? Was the slave girl right? Was Naaman cured? Did he find the prophet? What did he do with all that gold? Did the “nobody” become a “somebody”?

Well, you’ll have to log on to your Blackberries or your IPhones, or dust off the Bible that’s on your shelf, or run down to Book People and buy one and read for yourself the rest of the story. The ending is right there in the Book of Kings.

Which brings up another question: What about those kinds of people? People who read ancient faith stories like Second Kings, people who own a Bible or a Koran? Do you accept them? Do you affirm their faith journey? Do you promote their worth and dignity?

People who think stories of slave girls and generals might have meaning for you and your church on this day? Because you never know, the beer cart girl may just have good advice for Tiger Woods. And the slave girl just might cure your leprosy. And the voice of the nobodies may just have the word you need to hear.

May 2010 Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes

July 9, 2010 by Sasha Lorenzo Posted in Board Minutes

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

Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 6:30 p.m.

First UU Church of Austin, 4700 Grover, Austin, TX 78756 in Room 13

In Attendance:

Trustees: Nell Newton, President; Eric Stimmel, Vice-President; Kae McLaughlin, Treasurer; Chris Jimmerson, Secretary; Sheila Gladstone, Immediate Past President (Ex-Officio); Margaret Borden; Jeff Hutchens, Derek Howard; Aaron Osmer, Youth Trustee; Brendan Sterne; Michael West, Laura Wood.

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

Visitors Present: Stephanie Canada, Eric Hepburn Klondike Steadman, Susan Thomson

Call to Order

The President called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m.

Adoption of Agenda

The Trustees present adopted the agenda after the President noted that she would skip Item VI.E. as related materials were not yet ready (Appendix A, page 2).

Motion: Eric Stimmel – Adopt the agenda.

Second: Aaron Osmer

Discussion: None

Vote: All affirmative

Reading and Lighting of the Chalice

The President lit the chalice, reminding those present that they were engaging in holy work for the church. The Interim Minister led the trustees as they read the board covenant (Appendix A, Cover Page) in unison.

Visitor’s Forum

Stephanie Canada reviewed potential policies for the library collection and noted the current collection list (both in Appendix B), adding that the list is also available online. She informed the trustees of a candle blessing to be held in support of the Amarillo Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, which has been under attack by conservative religious groups (see Appendix C).

The President thanked her for her wonderful work on the library. Ms. Canada noted that Paul Fishers and Andi Wyndham had done much of the work on the library.

The President welcomed future board members Eric Hepburn, Klondike Steadman and Susan Thomson.

Consent Agenda Items

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

Motion: Chris Jimmerson – adopt the consent agenda items.

Second: Brendan Sterne

Discussion: None.

Vote: All Affirmative

Discussion and Action Items

Retreat and Values/Mission/Ends Session: The Vice-President noted that details regarding the May 22 retreat would be discussed immediately after the meeting. The Secretary reminded the group that the values/mission/ends session was scheduled for June 12 from 9 am to 4 pm in Austin. The President announced that the service on July 18 would be dedicated to presenting the new values/mission/ends to the congregation.

Fellowship Committee Chair: The nominating committee had recommended Sally Scott to serve as Chair of the Fellowship Committee.

Motion: Michael West – Appoint Sally Scott as Chair of the Fellowship Committee

Second: Chris Jimmerson

Discussion: None

Vote: All Affirmative

Interim Minister Search Report: Michael West reported that the Interim Minister Search Task Force was still hard at work and that they had interviewed a wonderful group of candidates. The task force was checking a variety of reference resources for each candidate.

Motion: Chris Jimmerson – Express the board’s great appreciation to Michael West and the Interim Minister Task Force for their dedication and terrific work.

Second: Aaron Osmer

Discussion: None

Vote: All Affirmative

Check Signing Policy Revision: The Treasurer reviewed the suggested revisions to the check signing policy for the operating account, which would make the Executive Director the primary signatory (Appendix A, Page 34).

Motion: Chris Jimmerson – approve the revision as presented.

Second: Michael West

Discussion: None

Vote: Affirmative – 9, Negative – 0, Abstain – 1 (Aaron Osmer)

Governance Discussion – Covenant Between Board and Executive Team: The Secretary and Interim Minister presented the draft of the covenant that they had created based upon discussions at the prior meeting (Appendix A, page 36), with the Secretary noting that the Interim Minister had done the writing. The Minister noted that she had received input from the Executive Director. The Trustees discussed several ways to clarify the covenant and agreed to revise it so that it would read as follows:

Covenant of Healthy Relations for the Board and the Executive Team

With the mission and vision of the First UU Church of Austin uppermost in mind, we, the Board and the Executive Team, covenant with one another to:

Presume good faith in all our interactions
Publicly support one another’s decisions and leadership
Address concerns directly with each other in a timely manner and encourage others in the church to do the same
Speak with one voice
Communicate crucial issues with one another in a timely manner
Demonstrate patience and trust as we all learn new modes of governance.
Support each other in the face of congregational misunderstandings and disagreements
Conduct ourselves openly and respectfully in times of agreement and disagreement
Agree to be called back into covenant.

Motion: Brendan Sterne – Adopt the covenant as amended.

Second: Margaret Borden

Discussion: None

Vote: All Affirmative

The Trustees discussed several ways to ensure the covenant would be treated as a living document, including a suggestion for reading it together at the end of each meeting.

Governance Discussion – Philosophy of Governance: Brendan Sterne gave copies of the information from the Bridge to Our Future sessions that had been held in the church to the Trustees and that he had assembled. He noted that the task for Trustees leading up to the values/mission/ends session on June 12 was to deepen their understanding of the values, possibility statements and peak experience stories that the congregation members had expressed. He suggested that recalling the nuances of discussions Trustees had observed and thinking about whether the possibility statements might be classified as “within” (differences made in the internal personal and spiritual growth of individual congregants), “among” (differences made in the church community and between congregants) and/or “beyond” (differences benefiting the greater Austin community or even further afar).

He noted that the Governance Task Force had held a discussion with Joe Sullivan, consultant for the governance transition. In speaking with Joe, the team had agreed that while we are on track toward moving to Policy-Based Governance (PGB), we are still growing into the potential for it, deepening our understanding of it and strengthening our commitment and ability to explain it to all those who might be affected. The Alternative to PGB is really the status quo with trying to apply additional best practices. PGB is the only coherent theoretical medical combined with best practices.

He noted that we are still forming our philosophy of governance, which could be thought of as our governance principals. He gave some examples of such principals:

Governance that has integrity and it truthful
Governance that is strategic versus day to day focused
Governance that is proactive rather than reactive

The Trustees discussed how important monitoring would be under PGB so that the board does not lose track of its own accountability. Even with monitoring under PGB, things may get missed; however, this is less likely with PGB than the status quo because it calls for proactive monitoring such the Internal Audit Committee.

Eric Hepburn related a video involving research that indicates that our over use of incentives and punishment may eliminate some possibilities of undesired behavior but also has stopped truly creative behavior. The Trustees discussed that one principal of our governance is that we would like to free our people to reach their true potential. We want a system of accountability and authority that empowers people.

In relation to this discussion, The Vice-President noted that based upon board input, the Executive Committee had met with the Executive Director the past week to go over his performance review. This procedure will need to be codified as we move forward.

The Interim Minister noted that the final appraisal of the Interim Ministry was due in June and could be in form of a letter from the President. The President agreed to complete such a letter.

Celebration of Board Year and Review of Goals Set at the Beginning of the Year:

Andi Wyndham and Scott Butki had joined the group. Andi presented to Aaron Osmer, Youth Trustee, a card and gift to express appreciation for his work in the church and to wish him well as he prepares to enter college.

The Trustees expressed great appreciation to Derek Howard and Jeff Hutchens, whose terms were expiring at the end of the month. Derek and Jeff expressed their confidence in the new board and the great work that is going on. The Trustees also expressed their great appreciation to Sheila Gladstone, Immediate Past-President, for her steadfast leadership in the church. Sheila noted how well the Trustees had supported one another and her during difficult times. She also expressed confidence in the work that the board had begun in the past year and in the new board members.

The Trustees thanked Nell Newton and praised her leadership during the past year as Board President. Nell noted her appreciation for the support of Eric Stimmel who had served as Vice-President during the year and expressed her confidence in him as he assumes the role of President in the coming year.

Gifts were given and well wishes were bestowed.

The President reviewed the goals the board had set at its retreat prior to the board year (Appendix A, Page 37). The church had accomplished many of the goals or was in the process of working toward them. While a few had not been met, even for these, progress had been made and ways of more fully meeting them in the future were being planned.

With no further business, the President adjourned the meeting at 8:35

Respectfully Submitted,

Chris Jimmerson

Secretary

Appendix A

A Government by the People

July 4, 2010 by Sasha Lorenzo Posted in Audio available, Guest Speakers, Mark Skrabacz, Sermons

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Rev. Mark Skrabacz

July 4, 2010

A Government by the People – Reflections on the responsibilities of our freedom

About patriotism George McGovern said, “The highest patriotism is not a blind acceptance of official policy, but a love of one’s country deep enough to call her to a higher plain.” Thomas Paine’s plea to move beyond the pale of a Sunshine Patriot in “The Crisis” is about as eloquent as it gets. He wrote: “These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.”

What do we do with our freedom? Many of us question the influence of our liberty at any cost on the world stage. Who here has concerns about our covert and overt operations in our attempts to bring freedom and democracy to countries in areas where we stand to lose our access to natural resources and political clout?

Recent polls declaring our population’s dissatisfaction and distrust of our government are very interesting. I wonder how you feel about our present government and situations that have come to the fore in the last 18 months. How about the 8 years before? Did anyone poll you to ascertain your level of satisfaction and trust? Are you in agreement with these current polls? This distrust in government seems a bit odd given the evidence of people’s disinterest in and lack of knowledge about our system of government. A succession of opinion polls have revealed that a majority of Americans are unable to name a single branch of government – not legislative, not judicial, not executive. Nor can a majority describe the Bill of Rights, which helps explain why the Patriot Act was so easily swallowed by most Americans. More than two-thirds do not know the substance of that landmark Supreme Court case, Roe v. Wade – perhaps the most polarizing judicial decision of the last 40 years. Nearly half of all adult Americans do not know that states have two senators, and three quarters do not know the length of a senate term. More than 50 percent of Americans cannot name their representatives; 40 percent cannot name either of their senators.

American educator and author Mortimer Adler, wrote that citizenship is the highest office in our government. All other offices – president for instance, or chief justice of the Supreme Court – are the instruments by which we, the people, govern ourselves. The government of the United States resides in us, “we, the people.” What resides in Washington D.C. is merely the administration of the government. We recognize this fact when, after a presidential election, we say that we have changed one administration for another. When the administration changes, the government does not change. That’s because the principle rulers of our nation, the citizens, are the permanent rulers, whereas the administration of the government is only temporary.

This is the meaning of our freedom. That “we, the people” have become our own rulers, the power behind the administration of our government. I remember traveling in Europe in Autumn of 2004 at the time leading up to the Presidential election. My European friends continually questioned me as to why I and we Americans were keeping the federal administration in power. In answer to their queries as to how this could be, I could only retort with examples of our two party system gone awry and how politics and lobbying and money had their influences far beyond the pale of the single citizen and his or her one vote. I felt the frustration that perhaps some of you did, especially when November 2 rolled around and the administration was given another 4 years. That motivated me to work during the next few years, attending my precinct caucus in 2008 and personally contributing money and time to elect someone I felt more connected to and whose policies more closely reflected my own.

Regardless of our political preferences, it is sometimes difficult to remember that in our system of government the president is not a dictator, but actually works for the citizens and is limited by the Constitution. Today we must be reminded that we, the people are the ruling class! “Citizen” is the highest office under the U.S. Constitution. All other offices are secondary. Perhaps some of our citizenry are asleep at the wheel when it comes to accountability for what “our government” is doing.

This brings to mind the slogan, “My country right or wrong!” Remember seeing it on bumper stickers and hearing it shouted in the early 70s? This simple phrase was used to polarize a generation during the Vietnam Conflict. History reveals that it was probably first stated as a toast by Commodore Stephen Decatur, Jr., who was an American naval officer notable for his heroism in the Barbary Wars and in the War of 1812. He was the youngest man to reach the rank of captain in the history of the United States Navy, and the first American celebrated as a national military hero who had not played a role in the American Revolution. Decatur said, “Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right, but right or wrong, our country!” There’s another saying from Carl Schurz, who was a Union Army general and later served as U.S. Senator from Missouri, and then as Secretary of the Interior. Schurz said, “My country right or wrong: When right to be kept right. When wrong, to be put right!”

As citizen-patriots we love our country, and when the administration is leading the country in the wrong direction, we need the humility to admit it, and the courage to put it right again! As citizens we have the duty to do so.

Citizens come in all shapes and sizes, colors and preferences. One complains that our government officials are proceeding along the worst course of action, flies a flag on all national holidays and sports a “Support Our Troops” ribbon on his car. Another donates to her political party, never passes up an opportunity to vote and sports a “Dissent is the Highest Form of Patriotism” bumper sticker on her car. The relative patriotism of either is pretty much dependent upon your sympathy with their points of view. They have equal claims to patriotismÉ up to a point.

If we hope to gain more out of being an American than patriotic fervor, and seek to be more active Unitarian Universalists, than we must step outside of the “club mentality” and engage in an endeavor Emmanuel Kant emphasized with his students two and a half centuries ago. It was absolutely integral to the development of his philosophical views. Kant said, “Think for yourselves!” “Have the courage to make use of your own understanding.” This speaks to our motivation, that quality which most of us have little ability to understand in others, much less in ourselves.

Let’s look at our two patriots again. Many of us might assume the first gentleman is the worst sort of patriot. But let’s assume he questions the course of action of our government officials because he has been following developments closely from a variety of sources, reading up on specific history and spent a great deal of time agonizing over what the right course of action is, and only after such reflection, he complains.

The second patriot supports her chosen political party and always votes along party lines because that’s the way she’s always done things. It doesn’t matter who is on the ballot so long as she checks off the right box concerning party affiliation. Voting to her is a privilege without any correlating responsibilities.

I don’t want to judge others without some understanding of their motivation. I want to look more deeply and ask what makes them tick.

Beloved community, we may celebrate our freedom today, but there is much to do to fulfill the promise of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. For example, we still have not achieved justice for the First Nations of our land. And we are in the midst of a passionate, yet unofficial, Immigration debate about people who are sometimes referred to as “undocumented workers,” and by others as “illegal aliens.”

And we face another threat – the power of corporations that have all of the rights of “citizens” but apparently none of the limitations. With massive wealth, they are able to purchase “free speech” through the media to such an extent that they have far more power to influence the outcome of elections than real citizens have. Now the Supreme Court, with newly appointed members, has decided that purchased speech is “free speech” and cannot be limited.

The promises of the Declaration of Independence – that all men are created equal, and possess certain inalienable rights – are difficult promises to fulfill. Yet this is the promise of our America. Our government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. We have, simply because we are human beings, the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As citizens, we are the rulers of our nation. We believe today that these promises are not just for white male property owners, as they were at the time of the early American republic. These are promises for all women and men. It is our hope that in time such rights will be seen as the natural rights of all people the world over. In the meantime, we still have work to do to fulfill these promises right here in our own land.

One last thought. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote that “the laws of nature and nature’s God” entitled people to these inalienable rights. Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Franklin, Adams all believed in God. The folks on the Religious Right are correct when they remind us of this fact. At the same time, they were not fundamentalist or even orthodox Christians. They were all deists, dissenters, or religious liberals of one sort or another, by the standards of most Americans of their time. A few, like Patrick Henry, were fairly orthodox; a few, like Thomas Paine, were so radical as to be anti-Christian. Jefferson, a deist, declared himself to be a Unitarian. John Adams was a member of a church that became Unitarian during his lifetime, and he is buried in that church, the First Parish Unitarian Universalist in Quincy, Massachusetts – as is his wife, First Lady Abigail Adams, and his son, President John Quincy Adams, and his wife, First Lady Louisa Catherine Adams. Two presidents and two first ladies all buried in a Unitarian Universalist Church – and no other church in the United States can say that. Likewise, Washington, Franklin and Madison also held deist views. They believed in God. But they often preferred terms like “providence,” or the term Jefferson used in the Declaration, “the laws of nature and nature’s God.” That is not a biblical phrase; it is a deist phrase.

Yet the Founders were not as secular as some on the left like to think, and they were not as orthodox as some on the right like to think. As a group its fair to say that they did believe that “the laws of nature and nature’s God” had endowed us with inalienable rights. They thought religious faith was important, that it gave us morals and ethics, and that these things were necessary for good government.

But they did not want a test of faith to be required to hold political office. The Constitution makes this clear. They did not want a national religion – the Bill of Rights makes that clear. And, as the Treaty of Tripoli clearly states – it was negotiated during the Washington administration, signed by President John Adams, and ratified without controversy by the Senate in 1797 – they did not intend the United States to be a Christian nation. Rather, they wanted our nation to be a land of religious liberty and tolerance.

And while they mentioned “the laws of nature and nature’s God” and the “Creator” in the Declaration of Independence, they left God out of the Constitution.

In one of the last letters of his life, Jefferson wrote of America’s hard-won freedom from kings who used church and state together to reign over others, acting as if only monarchs could draw strength from God. On June 24, 1826, 10 days before his death, he wrote, “All eyes are open, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.”

For the Founding Fathers, God’s grace was universal, not limited to royal blood. We owe a great debt to our Founders. They were not gods. They were not perfect. They believed in liberty, but many kept slaves. They believed in virtue, but most lived very complex private lives. All believed in the general idea of religion as a force for stability, but most had unconventional faiths.

George Washington refused to kneel to pray, and was not known to take communion – in fact, when a clergyman admonished Washington for not taking communion, Washington responded by ceasing to attend church. Still, he explained the American victory in the Revolution as “the hand of Providence,” going on at great length about how God had defeated the British Empire.

These complex and self-contradictory people laid the groundwork for much good. We hold these truths to be self evident! We have many promises to live up to. May we have the wisdom to fulfill the promise of the Founders, to achieve the blessings of liberty, justice and peace; and may we have the strength to pass on these blessings to future generations.

Being an American can help us live our UU principles and being UU can help us achieve what James Bryce expresses so beautifully. “Our country is not the only thing to which we owe our allegiance. It is also owed to justice and to humanity. Patriotism consists not in waving the flag, but in striving that our country shall be righteous as well as strong.”

Between the Head and the Hands

June 27, 2010 by Sasha Lorenzo Posted in Audio available, Guest Speakers, Sermons

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

First UU Young Adult Group

Valerie Stern, Tierney Ahrold, Sarah Dan Jones, Geoff Lorenz,

Wendy Robinson, Ian Reed, Adam Bates, Brendan Sterne

June 27, 2010

Text of this sermon is not available. Click the play button to listen.

The fire and the rose are one

June 20, 2010 by Sasha Lorenzo Posted in Audio available, Former Ministers, Janet Newman, Sermons

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Rev. Janet Newman

June 20, 2010

Text of this sermon is not available. Click on the play button to listen.

Courage, Commitment, and Claiming Adulthood

June 13, 2010 by Sasha Lorenzo Posted in Audio available, Former Ministers, Guest Speakers, Janet Newman, Sermons

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Rev. Janet Newman

June 13, 2010

Seniors Bridging Ceremony

Natalie Houchen, Shannon Mahoney, Aaron Osmer, Lauren Tothero, and Sierra Tothero

Text of this service is not available. Click on the play button to listen.

Cloudburst

June 6, 2010 by Sasha Lorenzo Posted in Audio available, Former Ministers, Janet Newman, Sermons

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Rev. Janet Newman

June 6, 2010

Text of this sermon is not available. Click on the play button to listen.

“Cloudburst” Music by Eric Whitacre, poetry by Octavio Paz

First UU Choir

Kelan Latimer, baritone

Gitanjali Mathur, soprano

Carol Ginn, reader

Chris Smith, Dan Wilson, and Peter Pope, percussion

Kathryn Grovier, piano

Brent Baldwin, conductor

The First UU Choir performance of “Cloudburst” is not included in the audio file above.

Music as meaning in our lives

May 30, 2010 by Sasha Lorenzo Posted in Audio available, Former Ministers, Janet Newman, Sermons

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Rev. Janet Newman

May 30, 2010

Text of this sermon is not available. Click on the play button to listen.

April 2010 Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes

May 25, 2010 by Sasha Lorenzo Posted in Board Minutes

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

Tuesday, April 20, 2010 at 6:30 p.m.

First UU Church of Austin, 4700 Grover, Austin, TX 78756 in Room 13

In Attendance:

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: Sandra Ries, Chair of the Nominating Committee

Call to Order

The President called the meeting to order at 6:36 p.m.

Adoption of Agenda

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

Motion: Margaret Borden – Adopt the agenda.

Second: Brendan Sterne

Discussion: None

Vote: All affirmative

Reading and Lighting of the Chalice

The trustees read the board covenant (Appendix A, Cover Page) in unison and the President lit the chalice.

Visitor’s Forum

No visitors were present at the meeting who wished to speak during the visitor’s forum.

Consent Agenda Items

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

Motion: Brendan Sterne – adopt the consent agenda items.

Second: Michael West

Discussion: None.

Vote: All Affirmative

Discussion and Action Items

Nominations Committee: The Chair of the Nominating committee presented the Leadership Slate for the upcoming year (Appendix A, page 36). She noted that the Nominating Committee would be interviewing a candidate to chair the Fellowship Committee shortly.

Motion: Chris Jimmerson – Appoint the committee chairs and board-appointed nominating committee members as recommended by the Nominating Committee

Second: Derek Howard

Discussion: None

Vote: All Affirmative

The Trustees expressed appreciation to the Nominating Committee, specifically phrased as “you guys rock”. The Trustees also expressed their appreciation for the committee chairs and nominating committee members who had agreed to serve.

Governance Discussion – Speaking with One Voice: The Treasurer gave an overview of the policy-based governance (PGB) principle of the board speaking with one voice (or not at all). She summarized the major points from resources located at http://www.carvergovernance.com/pg-np.htm and http://policygovernancetalk.blogspot.com/ (scroll to “Rigorous Debate”). She highlighted that board members must speak up when discussing high-level, policy decisions and be willing to engage in debate. After such debate though, the board speaks as one voice under PBG.

She gave an example for board discussion wherein a church member expresses discontentment with personnel policy and wants something done about it. The member particularly dislikes the paid holidays days, which they find excessive in number and some frivolous in nature. They would like to see staff work on Martin Luther King Day, Memorial Day, and others, just as people do “in the real world” because this member certainly does not get those days off.

The Trustees suggested the following way to handle such a situation:

Invite them to a board meeting
Do not invite them to a board meeting and inform them that the board has voted to delegate Holiday Policy to the Executive within certain limitations. Ask if they have spoken with the Executive and if they have not, redirect to the Executive.
Would the Executive have a conflict, as Holiday Policy would affect them too?
Ask them to tell me more – find out if there are any mission/policy issues and if not move the conversation to mission/policy. People often just want to be heard. Redirect to Executive after hearing their concerns.

The Treasurer gave a second example in which a staff person approaches a board member because they believe the staff receive too few paid holidays and that Veteran’s Day, Columbus’s Birthday, and others should get added, just like government employees, bankers, and others. There was general consensus that the staff person would be redirected to the Executive.

As a final exercise, she raised the question of whether individual board members should vote in a congregational meeting on matters upon which the board as a whole has made a recommendation.

The Trustees discussed the following:

Board members may have more influence and a board member voting against would not be “speaking with one voice” and could raise questions within the congregation over whether the board had really settled the matter amongst ourselves before making a recommendation.
Should not a member in good standing be able to vote, even if it is a board member?
If the recommendation to the congregation will involve the staff having to carry out a policy, the board not speaking with one voice could undermine staff efforts.
Perhaps think of the board as one entity – as a servant of the church wherein Trustees may be giving up some autonomy they might normally have as a church member when they agree to serve on the board.
If the board has not reached the point on any particular issue where individual members feel comfortable speaking with one voice, even if they were in the minority on the issue when the board held its vote, it may be too soon for the board to speak.
The situation might be analogous to parenting wherein the parents must be providing the same message.

The President noted that this was for discussion purposes, as the church is not yet functioning under PGB. A Trustee asked for a “straw poll”, as even though the church is not fully under PGB a congregational meeting was scheduled soon. The President asked for a show of hands on whether Trustees would be comfortable with each of the following options as regards individual Trustees voting on board recommended items at congregations meetings (will total more than attending as Trustees could vote for any option with which they would be comfortable):

All Trustees would be asked to vote for the board recommendation: 2

All Trustees would be asked not vote on the issue at the meeting or abstain: 10

Trustees would vote their conscious as a church member: 2

The Trustees agreed that this had been an excellent discussion that warranted further consideration at future meetings.

Delegation of Financial Reporting and Budgeting to the Executive: The Treasurer gave a brief overview of proposed motions to delegate financial reporting and development of the annual budget (Appendix A, pages 25 and 26). The Trustees discussed the following:

Concerns regarding not being clear over how the process of developing the budget would work.
The process would be similar to prior years wherein the chair of the finance committee developed the spreadsheets and worked with the different areas of the church to update them and develop the budget. What would happen instead is that the Executive Director (ED) would develop the spreadsheets and manage the process with the finance committee assisting and serving as a sounding board.
The motions should say “Executive Team” rather than “Executive Director”, as we would be delegating the budget to the team.
The Executive Director’s job description already specifies this duty.
Concerns that 10 minutes on the agenda is not enough time to discuss this (time was subsequently added to the discussion).
Concerns that, with two changes to the Executive Team over the next 14 months because we are in the interim period, whether the ministerial/values/mission weighing of resources would be strong enough. The finance committee performed this weighing last time.
The next finance committee chair may not be able to manage the process due to time constraints and in the prior process the board seemed to get too “down in the trenches” in the budgeting process.
The ED’s responsibility is to the mission and the ED would have to work with their Co-Executive in developing the budget and the budget pass muster with the board. The board has to philosophically and literally sign off on the budget.
We are already delegating to the finance committee to develop the budget. The only difference here is we are delegating to the Executive Team instead.
A Trustee suggested language to amend the draft motion on page 26 of Appendix A to make clear that budget development must further the mission of the church.

There had been little concern regarding delegating financial reporting and management to the ED, so the following motion was offered.

Motion: Michael West — The Board of Trustees of First UU Church of Austin hereby assigns responsibility and authority for church financial reports, related data, and otherwise supervising financial operations to the Executive Team. Said authority and responsibility includes the ability to change and adjust the report format, the manner of keeping data, and any related policy or procedure outlined in the Policies and Procedures Manual, with the exception of the Financial Assets Management Policy and Bylaws, which require congregational approval to change.

The Executive Director will inform the board of any material changes through her/his regular monthly report.

The Executive Director’s July 2010 monthly report will provide a more thorough description of the changes undertaken since adoption of this policy, the results, and significant concerns which have arisen in the process.

Second: Chris Jimmerson

Discussion: There was no further discussion.

Vote: All affirmative.

Based upon the discussion of delegating the budget development process, the following motion was offered:

Motion: Chris Jimmerson — The Board of Trustees of First UU Church of Austin hereby assigns responsibility and authority to develop the annual budget for the board to the Executive Team. Said authority and responsibility overrides any language to the contrary within the Policies and Procedures Manual, with the exception of the Financial Assets Management Policy and Bylaws, which require congregational approval to change.

Acting to further the mission of the church, the Executive Team will present a budget proposal to the board for consideration no later than its monthly October meeting.

Second: Eric Stimmel

Discussion: There was no further discussion

Vote: Affirmative – 7, Negative – 2, Abstain – 0

Delegation of Rental Policy to the Executive Team: The Vice-President presented a proposed motion to delegate facilities rentals to the Executive Team to the free the board of discussions over small adjustments to the policies and operational details (Appendix A, page 27).

Motion: Jeff Hutchens – The Board of Trustees of First UU Church of Austin hereby assigns responsibility for and authority to change church rental policy to the Executive Team. Said authority and responsibility overrides any language to the contrary within current policy, including the Policies and Procedures Manual, with the exception of the Financial Assets Management Policy and Bylaws, which require congregational approval to change.

The Executive Director will inform the board of any material changes to said policy through her/his regular monthly report.

Second: Brendan Sterne

Discussion: None

Vote: All Affirmative

Covenant Between the Board of Trustees and the Executive Team: As the board has begun delegating to the Executive Team, the Secretary and the Interim Minister facilitated a discussion of promises the board and the Executive Team might make with one another to ease this transition and support one another. Such promises that the board might make to the Executive Team and that the Executive Team might make to the board will serve as the basis of a covenant. As the discussion unfolded, it became clear that most of the promises were mutual. They included:

We will presume good faith.
The board will speak with one voice and the Executive Team will speak with one voice.
We will support one another’s decisions publicly.
We will address concerns directly with one another and encourage others in the church to do so also.
We will communicate crucial issues with one another in a timely manner.
The board promises to Executive Team that the we have “got your back” during this time of change in the church, and the Executive promises to trust that the board has “got your back”.
We will have patience with one another as we learn new modes of governance.

A Trustee suggested that the current board covenant might also serve as the board and Executive Team covenant, while others expressed a desire to see a specific covenant regarding the board/Executive Team relationship. The Interim Minister and Secretary agreed to take the data from the discussion and return with draft language for a Board of Trustees and Executive Team Covenant of Healthy Relations.

Settled Minister Search Committee: Trustee Michael West, who had been charged by the board to lead the selection process for the committee, presented the following church members to serve on the Settled Minister Search Committee (SMSC): Sharon Moore, Maria Nehring, Jill Wiggins, Lynda West, Jill Smith, John Franks, Dale Whiteaker-Lewis, Michael Kersey, Gary Bennett. The Trustees agreed that this was a great group to serve in this important role. A Trustee commented that it will be important that the SMSC operate with an open and transparent process while also guarding confidentiality.

Motion: Derek Howard — adopt the slate of members of the SMSC as recommended and charge them with the task of selecting the candidate for presentation to the Congregation for Senior Minister of First UU Austin.

Second: Chris Jimmerson

Discussion: A Trustee inquired as to the reasons the members had given for serving on the committee. Their reasons included:

A feeling this is an important decision in the life of the church
Wanting to make an important contribution
Feeling strongly about the importance of the ministry of the church
Feeling this importance affects all areas of the church, for example Stewardship.

Michael West also noted that the members will bring a variety of skills and experience, demographics and lengths of time as church members.

Vote: All Affirmative

The Interim Minister offered to conduct a ceremony of investiture for the SMSC, as well as the new Board of Trustees, once elected. The Trustees agreed that this would be terrific.

Report on Interim Minister Salary and Housing Package: The President reported that in order to attract the best candidates for Interim Minister and to prepare ourselves for doing the same for the Settled Minister Search, the Executive Committee had authorized the Interim Minister Search Task Force to enter midpoint into the UUA Settlement System. This totaled a package of $110,080. The Treasurer noted that moving expenses would be required also.

Request to Authorize the Executive Committee to Finalize the Agenda for the Congregational Meeting: The President requested this authorization for the Executive Committee, as there will not be another board meeting beforehand. She noted that the agenda would be much the same as the one for the Pre-Congregational Meeting (Appendix A, page 10)

Motion: Brendan Sterne — Authorize the Executive Committee to finalize the agenda for the Spring Congregational Meeting.

Second: Margaret Borden

Discussion: None

Vote: All Affirmative.

The Secretary noted that the change to membership requirements in the bylaws that had been a requirement of a contribution of record within the last 13 months at the Pre-Congregational meeting would be changed to 12 months for the Congregational Meeting. This change was based upon discussions at the Pre-Congregational Meeting.

Special Fees: The Immediate Past President presented a proposed motion to allow the ED to set and assess certain fees on rentals when such rentals caused extra costs to be incurred by the church (see proposal and examples on page 28 of Appendix A). Such fees would only offset these increased expenses and would not result in excess revenue. This would prevent the need to go through budget revision procedures each time such excess costs are incurred.

The Trustees discussed that the Executive Team rather than only the ED will be allowed to make these decisions; however, the ED could be the person who complies monitoring reports for the board.

Motion: Chris Jimmerson – The Board of Trustees of First UU Church of Austin hereby assigns authority to set and assess special rental fees, defraying the cost of doing business, to the Executive Team. These pass-through fees will apply directly toward the actual cost of the expense, and may include, but are not limited to, items such as:

A sexton fee – which we already require for renter use of the Sanctuary and other special events
A watering fee – allowing us to rent the northwest parking lot. Without such a fee, to defray the cost of watering the lawn to mitigate wear and tear, ongoing weekday rental of the parking lot during the summer would likely result in us having a mud pit when fall rains comes.

The Executive Director will inform the board of any material changes to said fees through her/his regular monthly report.

Second: Derek Howard

Discussion: None

Vote: All Affirmative

Bridge Builders Action Team Charge: The Secretary presented a proposed change to the charge for the Bridge Builders Action Team. The Team is nearing completion of its current charge and has identified the need for a task force to oversee and monitor a governance transition plan. The Trustees discussed that it might be clearer to re-create this as a task force to avoid confusion over the many uses of the word “bridge” that have been employed in the church recently.

Motion: Derek Howard – Create a governance task force charged with developing a plan for transitioning to policy-based governance.

Second: Brendan Sterne

Discussion: None

Vote: All Affirmative

Governance Discussion – Report on Answers from Questions from Prior Board Meeting: The Secretary reported on a discussion he had with our consultant on governance regarding two questions that had come up at the prior meeting. The first had to do with whether a vote to adopt the Consent Agenda Items would still be needed. The Secretary reported that the board would still need to adopt these items. As regards a question over whether an issue involving a memorial fund would be a board policy or an executive policy after a transition to PGB, the secretary reported that the answer would depend upon how the board wrote policy regarding financial matters and where it stopped and delegated remaining interpretation to the executive.

Governance Discussion – Moral Ownership: Brendan Sterne facilitated a discussion of “moral ownership” or to whom the board is accountable. He summarized the highlights from information available at http://www.carvergovernance.com/pg-np.htm (scroll to section on board as owner-representative), explaining the difference between moral owners of an organization or church versus its customers. He also highlighted an article on church ownership contained on pages 30-32 in Appendix A. He noted that while for First UU Austin, church members are obviously part of the moral ownership, that the board’s accountability may include ownership beyond church members.

The Trustees discussed the following as their moral ownership:

Our mission
Congregation/Congregants
The future (e.g. future members)
Our ancestors
Austin, TX

Proposal to Shift to One Service During the Summer Months: The President presented a proposal from the Executive Team and Senior Staff that the church shift to one service during June, July and August. Such a shift offers several potential advantages:

Attendance is typically low during the summer so one service could result in that service having higher attendance.
It could save on some expenses.
It would allow for time and space for fellowship in Howson Hall after the service.

The Trustees discussed the potential advantages and disadvantages of the proposal, potential times for the one service and how to coordinate with the Public Forum without causing technical or other problems for the forum. The consensus of the Trustees was to pursue this potential change for the summer months, with the President and Executive Team working with the forum team and technical folks on logistics.

With no further business, the President adjourned the meeting at 9:25 pm.

Respectfully Submitted,

Chris Jimmerson

Secretary

Appendix A — Supporting Materials