Tiger Woods and the Beer Cart Girl

by 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

by Posted in Uncategorized

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

by 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.”

Cloudburst

by 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.

April 2010 Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes

by Posted in Uncategorized

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:

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.

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.

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: 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. 

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: 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

Podcasts

by Posted in Podcasts

Audio podcasts of recent sermons are now available through iTunes.

We are adding older sermons from our archives all the time. You can subscribe to these podcasts for free.

Have a favorite sermon you’d like added to the podcast? Send an email to  requesting its addition.

A complete list of sermons in our archive can be found under the indexes tab.

2011 Meeting Dates for Board, All-Council and Congregational Meetings

by Posted in Uncategorized

Meetings in bold are open to the public. Only church leadership (committee chairpersons) can attend italicized meetings. Only board trustees can attend other meetings.

January:

  • 9: All-Council Meeting at 1:30 pm
  • 18: Board Meeting at 6:30 pm

February:

  • 1: Executive Committee at 5:45 pm
  • 15: Board Meeting at 6:30 pm

March:

  • 1: Executive Committee at 5:45 pm
  • 15: Board Meeting at 6:30 pm

April:

  • 5: Executive Committee at 5:45 pm
  • 10: Pre-congregational Meeting at 1:30 pm followed by All-Council meeting
  • 19: Board Meeting at 6:30 pm

May:

  • 3: Executive Committee at 5:45 pm
  • 15: Congregational Meeting at 1:30 pm (NOTE: You must be a church member to vote at Congregational Meetings.)
  • 17: Board Meeting at 6:30 pm