I wasn't going to write about the certification of UUA congregations because I didn't think it would do any good. But one thing stuck out when I looked at the certification list -- which closed on February 1 -- so a few words.
I was struck by how many congregations gave no money to the UUA.
There are always some: very small or fragile ones, for instance, and I've noticed that Christian and Pagan congregations are over-represented. I read that as alienation, discontent with services provided or not provided and perhaps more. Non-contributing is one of the things that keeps you from having voting representation at General Assembly (big deal) so, the UUA isn't truly being punitive for publishing this list. But I'm sure peer pressure plays into the calculus (good luck with that) -- and besides, showing displeasure goes both ways.
What makes this year different is the number of non-fragile, non-tiny, middle-of-the-road congregations on the list. More than I've ever seen before. Not that the UUA has been the easiest to defend lately, at least on financial grounds. I can imagine the calculus of giving nothing to the UUA as opposed to planning for strategic spending or making up for losses. The UUA is a hard sell, especially as it becomes harder and harder to identify what one gets for the money. Who might be emboldened by that list, rather than embarrassed?
Many people I know have fallen for Marie Kondo's method of de-cluttering, and her signal question, "Does it spark joy?" The list suggests that, for some at least, the UUA doesn't.