People are beginning to notice and respond to the Justice GA Schedule and grid (available here.)

Since I was at the meeting where the schedule was created, I want to ask you to think about a few things as you begin to respond:

First, be gentle in your critique. This schedule is the result of a lot of good people working hard together to respond to a wide variety of needs and expectations.  We made a very clear decision to privilege the needs of the local community and let THEM tell us what they need. The form the schedule takes reflects that. It’s more about the local community’s needs than our hopes and expectations.

Second, I learned at the meeting that there are not (at this point) a whole lot of ways that 3000-4000 UUs can be truly helpful to the local community. There are many ways that trying to meet OUR need to do something that we recognize as service/witness would tax the local community’s resources. We can’t just descend on them. And the amount of organization and resources that a huge service project would demand would actually be a drain on the limited resources of the very people we hope to serve. Knowing this, we’ve tried hard to find ways that  we can use our presence, power, and resources to do things that are truly helpful.  This GA will offer many ways to be of service, but they may not look like we may have expected.

Third, (and I’m not sure I know how to say this gently) we have A LOT to learn. The amount of education and preparation is very intentional and is also a response to the local community wanting us to truly understand not just the issues they face, but the history behind those issues. Education is perhaps THE very most powerful thing we can do to help–not only the Arizona migrants–but people back home, who also face the consequences of this history in ways both similar and dissimilar.  If we can get thousands of UUs to grapple with the history/theology of the Doctrine of Discovery OR to understand the basics of coalition building and community organizing OR to feel like they can help make a difference with the privilege and power they have…well, we’d have accomplished a lot.

Fourth, there will be a lot of choices built into this GA. People will be able to choose how much service they can do, how much history they want to learn, how many practical “take it home” skills they learn, etc.  The “grid” can’t reflect that very well. But what I heard among the very key people at the planning meeting was a deep desire to allow attendees as much flexibility as possible to learn, reflect, and act.  All of that, of course, takes place within the constraints of time, space, and available resources.

Truly, I was amazed by the commitment, dedication, realism, and vision of the planners. This GA won’t be perfect. It probably won’t be like you imagine it. But it will be a very heartfelt effort to create something that helps create justice and truly partners with the people who need us in Arizona.

One of our partners in this work, B Loewe , Communications Director at National Day Laborer Organizing Network, started our time together with a reflection on three goals we might share for this experiment we call “Justice GA”:

1. Build power for the local communities by using our resources, privilege, and access (especially to the media) to draw attention to the struggle in Arizona and the deeper inequities and injustices it reveals.

2. Shrink disbelief among our own people and among people throughout this nation who think and say, “I just can’t believe our government would do these things” or “I didn’t know it was so bad.”

3. Enlarge compassion.

He reminded us that we are not expected to do a Justice GA perfectly, but we are committed to doing it in partnership with the people who invited us, with the people who have taken the risk to make it happen, and with each other.

Love Will Guide Us,

Sean

In the past most congregations’ attempts to demoralize their ordained leadership have been haphazard and ad hoc, although still surprisingly effective. In the interest of bringing more rigorous and systematic approaches to these efforts here are some of my modest proposals:

1. Schedule a weekly meeting for your pastor to sit down with the treasurer (or, better yet, the assistant treasurer) to “go over” every business expense. Be sure to inquire if certain expenses are legitimate, such as the purchase of a Marilyn Robinson or Gail Godwin novel from the pastor’s book allowance (“Should we really be paying for your chick-lit?”) Or a long-distance call to a neighboring pastor friend from seminary. Do such expenses really profit the church? And what about this big expense for 14 volumes by this Barth guy? Do you really need all of these? And his title sounds so, well, dogmatic!

While we all agree that compassion is a great idea, Rabbi Tabick acknowledges there are challenges to its execution. She explains how a careful balance of compassion and justice allows us to do good deeds, and keep our sanity.

Now, only a particular congregation knows what the “right things” are for their context, but rarely are they statements of belief, theology or (gasp!) even mission.  In fact, they usually aren’t words at all, they are actions.  Hmm…it seems the “old wives” were right again. It is our actions that create our reputation and our reputation is what is most visible in the world.

The article quotes Fr. Ron Pogue who lays out his hopes for how the public sees the Episcopal church. He hopes:

• When people in Lawrence, Kansas think of The Episcopal Church, we’d like them to think of the Trinity Interfaith Food Pantry, the BackSnack program, and the outstanding music ministry, all of which we share generously with our neighbors.
• When people in City Island, Bronx, NY think of The Episcopal Church, will they think of the Healthy Aging Program at Grace Church?
• When people in Raliegh, NC think of the Episcopal Church, we want them to remember that St. Mark’s Church there has an AIDS Care Team.
• When people in Tuscaloosa, AL think of The Episcopal Church, maybe they’ll be aware of the Arts and Autism after school program they sponsor.
• When people in Kansas City, MO think of the Episcopal Church, they’ll think of the St. Luke’s Hospital system with 11 hospitals and a hospice program, or, maybe they’ll remember that St. Paul’s Church just across the state line in the Diocese of Kansas, has a remarkable ministry of feeding the hungry.

It seems to me we should all be thinking about how we are seen (or not seen) in our communities.  What are the acts that speak louder than words in our congregations?  Can people in our cities, towns and neighborhoods tell what we believe by our actions?  I’m proud that many Unitarian Universalists went to Arizona to protest SB 1070 because they believed it to be racist, unjust, and cruel.  But I want to know what the people next door to our churches know about us.

Sadly, in my experience, the answer is “not much.”  We most often hear “Why didn’t I know a place like this existed?”  And I sometimes want to say, “Because we keep it to (and for?) ourselves.”  We keep the sense of community, the warm welcome, the money and the volunteer hours to ourselves. We also spend hours arguing about what we should do, meanwhile getting very little done.

Contrast this with the Rolling Hills Baptist Church in Fayetteville, GA, who write on their website:

On October 5, 2008, the members of Rolling Hills voted overwhelmingly in favor of joining GOD in His redemptive work by selling her buildings and property, and using the proceeds to increase ministry and mission efforts in our community and beyond.

Sounds radical……but we’ve come to the conclusion that we want to invest more deeply in people rather than property. We’ve grown tired of investing more and more of our budget on mortgage, utilities, insurance, etc… at the expense of ministry and mission.

As Ed Stetzer says…”we’ve been so concerned with the barn that we’ve neglected the harvest.” We agree – Jesus never said anything about barns, but He seemed very concerned about the harvest.

If that example seems too far-fetched for Unitarian Universalists, look at this. And then go donate. It’s a chance to make a real difference–Standing on the Side of Love and justice in a hurting town.

I’m not saying we should all sell our buildings and give the money to the poor. (Though I do remember that advice being given to a certain wealthy man who wished to enter “the kingdom of heaven.”)  But I do think our congregations need to think through what portion of our resources–especially time, money, and energy–we are using to serve those beyond ourselves.  Rev. Dr. Rebecca Ann Parker challenges us to “Choose to bless the world.”  Not just each other, but the world.

So, what are the things you hope people think of when they think of your congregation?  What does the world know about your congregation?  Do they know that you recycle? Do they know you feed the hungry? Do they know you rally for justice? Do they know you tutor children? Do they know you give money to the poor? Do they know you welcome the presence, gifts, and leadership of all people? Do they know you love to sing? Do they know, as the image of the truck on the Rolling Hills website proudly proclaims, that “The church has left the building?”

The next step is to read this article in the NYTimes online.

Now, compare the two.  And think about how your congregation works.

Does your congregation ask and answer the Three Key Questions? If so, what is the role of your minister and other leaders?

Or, like the Times article says, do people in your congregation “increasingly want pastors to soothe and entertain them”?  If so, what is the role of the minister and other leaders?

All of this, really, is about mission.  Soothing and entertaining the members and visitors is NOT a sufficient mission for a congregation. It isn’t healthy for clergy or members or leaders or visitors or the world.  It is not what our congregations are meant to be or do.

And sadly, more and more, it seems the consumer culture is influencing churches rather than the other way around.  But we can change that. A church with a mission can be a counter-cultural force that encourages people to believe, remember, and live lives that have a higher purpose and a deeper calling.

And that will keep us all from burning out.

(They are nearly impossible to embed correctly here.)

Ask these three questions of yourself. Then ask them of your congregation.

Confrontation is hard, but it is one of the spiritual responsibilities of healthy congregations.  We may call it “speaking the truth in love” or “holding one another accountable to our covenant” or even “standing on the side of love,” but eventually, we must confront those behaviors that would do harm to our communities.

It is understandably easier for us to confront others–to march and protest, speak and agitate on behalf of our values–than to find the courage to confront the ways we hurt one another.  When a policy or law is  racist or homophobic, we take to the streets, expressing outrage.  But when a church member reveals a homophobic opinion or makes a comment rooted in assumptions of privilege, we remain silent. We get confused. We think we have no right or responsibility to question or confront a person’s belief.

The tragedy of this is that the harm is often so much greater–the wound deeper and slower to heal–when we are hurt by someone we consider a part of our community. And when a hurtful comment or action is witnessed by others who then remain silent, that hurt is multiplied exponentially. No matter our intentions, when a hurtful comment remains unconfronted, the message is, “It’s okay to say things like that here.”  As the folk wisdom says, “All it takes for evil to triumph is for good [people] to remain silent.”

So, how do we do it? How do we find the courage and the words to confront people in ways that are both responsible and effective?  I think the first step is just to practice those good, old-fashioned “I” statements:

• I disagree.
• I don’t see it that way.
• I am really uncomfortable with that.
• I’ve had a different experience.
• I think…

This is the best way to interrupt the assumption that everyone agrees and is okay with what was said or done.  Often, all it takes is one person willing to say, “Not me!” for others to be reminded that they are also free to disagree and for the whole group to begin to discuss things more deeply. Often this deeper discussion becomes a realignment of the group with their shared values–someone may quote the covenant, the mission of the congregation, or one of the seven principles of Unitarian Universalism. The courage one person showed is taken up by the group and becomes a kind of “course correction” that helps the conversation and community reconnect with their aspirations of love, justice, and compassion.

Learning healthy confrontation is a skill that takes practice.  It is also counter-cultural. We are trained from childhood to be nice and to avoid conflict.  We are punished for interrupting, for arguing, and sometimes even for expressing our own opinion.  So we learn to go along, to smile on the outside even when something (our conscience?!) on the inside is saying, “No! no! no!”

Looking at our history, I believe our faith tradition calls us to something more. It calls us to confront injustice wherever we find it–be that the laws of our nation or the recesses of our heart. It calls us to courage and strength in making our values and ideals something real–something that truly changes the way we live. And our tradition calls us to be more than willing–but to be daring–in the ways we refuse silence and speak on behalf of Love.

One important observation: the amount and effectiveness of informal powers in our congregations seems to be inversely related to size. That is, the smaller the congregation, the more likely it is that informal powers make up a significant part of the congregation’s overall power and culture.

Here are the most common forms of informal power:

The Power of Longevity

The Power of Longevity resides in long-term, even founding, members of a congregation. They can be called upon to tell the congregation’s story and remind people of the “long view.”  Often, the power of longevity can be helpful in times of anxiety to remind people that the congregation has weathered other storms.  A few rare people have the Power of Longevity over the course of not only time, but multiple congregations.  They can be called upon to help put a current issue in the larger context of Unitarian Universalism as a whole.

Dangers of this power: A congregation’s story is a precious thing and can be used in support of health or in support of dis-ease. Some people use the Power of Longevity to shape the congregation’s story to their own ends. In one congregation, the first thing I heard from a founding member was a long litany of the failures of previous ministers. I should not have been surprised, a few years later, to find my own perceived failures added to the list.  Another danger: people with the power of longevity can stop any conversation with four simple words: “We already tried that.”

The Power of Assets

The people with the Power of Assets are able to provide the congregation with a large part of the resources needed to do the work of the congregation.  This is most often money, but can also be time or certain skills that are deemed to be “irreplaceable.” These people can be called upon to  inspire others by speaking to the importance of the mission of the church and how it motivates them to share what they have.  They can help a new program get a good start by giving a bit extra to make it happen.  They can help a congregation be supple and flexible in response to change and unforeseen circumstances. They can model generosity and giving with a grateful heart.

Dangers of this power: A congregation can easily become dependent upon and even beholden to people with the Power of Assets.  If a congregation isn’t careful about limiting special gifts, they can usurp democracy by funding pet projects while letting other things languish unfunded.  A person who has made themselves and their gifts “irreplaceable” can keep things from happening because the congregation doesn’t feel they can risk the disapproval of the person with the Power of Assets.  At worst, a person with the Power of Assets can control the church by threatening to leave and take their assets with them.

The Power of Charisma

People with the Power of Charisma can make excellent leaders. Their ability to “light up a room” can make even the dullest aspects of church governance seem interesting.  People often clamor to get involved in activities and program that are run by people with the Power of Charisma. If they aren’t in leadership, they can add “spark” to a meeting or event. They are able to “lift people’s chins” from myopic focus on detail and get them to remember the vision, mission, and covenant of the congregation. (Lots of minister have the power of charisma.)  When a good idea needs energy, it’s good to get someone with the Power of Charisma involved.

Dangers of this power:  A congregation cannot be all things to all people. Often people with the Power of Charisma are  idealists who have a hard time setting priorities and letting go of perfection. They may exhaust the congregation with vision after vision and idea after idea. If they get disillusioned, they can spread that disillusionment just as quickly and effectively as they spread energy and excitement.  They may even use their charisma to put forward a competing vision that causes conflict between those with formal power and those with informal power.

The Power of Judgment

There are people in every congregation with a keen sense of judgment. They can often evaluate ideas and see the flaws, keeping the congregation from making mistakes. If the Power of Judgment is used in service to the mission and vision of the congregation, these people are able to clarify, focus, and keep the congregation on track.  Good judgment is a blessing, especially in financial matters. A person with good judgment is not always fiscally conservative–sometimes they champion a good risk because they are able to see that the odds are worth it–they know the power of investing well.

The dangers of this power: While a congregation needs to exercise judgment, sometimes they need to make choices that, on the surface, include significant risk. This might be taking an unpopular stand on a justice issue or firing a beloved but troublesome or ineffective member of the staff.  Often, people with the Power of Judgment raise a congregation’s anxiety about the consequences of making difficult choices that are necessary for their health or integrity.  And when a congregation chooses to act in ways that a person with the Power of Judgment does not support–well, judgment often becomes just downright judgmental.  This can range from low-level complaining to all-out power struggles.  Another danger: the congregation and person with the Power of Judgment can sometimes get stuck in an almost parent/child dynamic. The person with the Power of Judgment can become an overbearing parent taking credit for all successes while saying “I told them so” at every setback. And the congregation can sometimes become take on the role of the rebellious adolescent, pushing away responsibility and acting out.

The Power of the Unscrupulous

This is the only kind of informal power with no benefits. There is nothing about a person willing to do anything by any means to get their way.  The Power of the Unscrupulous is entirely destructive, even if the “ends” seem legitimate.  If a person is willing to ignore the rules and covenants of the congregation, they do more harm than good every time. It is vital that people understand there is never an exception.  Our congregations are places where people risk deep relationships of trust and the process is as important–if not more important–than the result.  If someone argues that “this situation demands an exception,” things have just moved onto very shaky moral ground. There are no exceptions to the rules of compassion, equality, respect, and good process. If someone is organizing a secret meeting, sending scathing emails, or spreading gossip or rumors, they have fallen under the spell of the Power of the Unscrupulous and it’s time to call them back into right relationship, insisting they stop doing harm.

I’m sure there are other informal powers that I haven’t thought to name and describe, but the most important thing is to get people thinking about the powers–formal and informal–in their congregations.  What powers exist? What powers are being used in service to the mission and vision of the congregation?  What powers are being used to resist?  How can leaders begin to harness the “powers that be” in order to further the good work they hope to do?

One of the things Unitarian Universalists are not very good at talking about is power. We have a long history of being suspicious of power and authority, sometimes for good reason and sometimes, it seems, because we’re uncomfortable with our own power. But without an honest assessment of power in our congregations, we’re not very good at putting that power to work in service of our mission and that slows down the good work we’re trying to do.

We are willing to talk about empowering others, especially those who are excluded from conventional–often political and social–power.  But we’re not very good about coming to terms with one simple reality: people have power and unless something very strange happens to human social interactions, they always will. And, I know this can be hard to accept, but sometimes that power is perfectly legitimate!

In our congregations, societies, and even our families, some people have formal power.  Parents, elected officials, teachers, leaders, ministers, board members, committee chairs–these are examples of people with legitimate power.  Parents are not the same as friends because they have power–they set healthy limits, grant permission, and provide structure in their childrens’ lives. A member who attends occasional Sunday services is not the same as a board member because a board member has power–and therefore must stay informed, involved, and be willing to make decisions that effect the life of the congregation.

Elected officials (which actually includes ministers and board members in our congregations) are granted the powers of their office–along with its responsibilities–in order to provide leadership by making decisions on behalf of the whole. These are the thousands of small decisions (usually delegated to staff) that would be a nightmare to make by committee, and decisions that lead to change that the whole might not be able to make because change requires discomfort, and for the most part, organizations tend to want to avoid discomfort and stick with “how it’s always been.”

Talking openly about power can only help us get healthier as people and congregations. Being clear that electing a minister or board member gives them power in the congregation might help us get over our habit of electing “whoever we can get to volunteer.” Openly discussing power would also prompt us to do some other good work: to set clear, measurable goals to guide those we’ve entrusted with power; to clarify lines of accountability and means of evaluation; and to learn to accept our power as a resource and responsibility and grapple with how to use that power ethically. The more open we are about power, the more thoughtful we can be about how we use it and the less we’ll need old habits meant to protect us from the thoughtless use of power: cynicism, suspicion, and the need to “dissent just for the sake of dissent.”

(Of course, there are other kinds of power at work in our congregations–informal powers that I will talk about in part 2.)