Category: Unitarian Universalist Association

Posted on

My take on the certification numbers

The Rev. Thom Belote has been writing about growth numbers following the UUA member congregation certification. I have a different take than he, though I should add the more years I do this the less I learn and the more I’m inclined to use my intuition. Both suggest the UUA isn’t growing enough to stave off “heat death” and that’s because we don’t start enough new churches rather than the one’s that we do have aren’t growing fast enough.

How I came up with this. I compared the churches that registered in 2003 (the first year I looked at the numbers) with this year’s. This helps give some scope, and the problems in 2004 and 2005 with federated churches counting their whole congregations (and inflating the figures) wasn’t in evidence in 2003. Plus, the zigzagging that occurs from ministerial departures and arrival are flattened a bit. The Unitarian Universalist Church of the Philippines isn’t in there because they didn’t certify in 2003; in any case, they really are a denomination in their own right. I count the CLF because it is a part of the North American setting. Other non-North American churches are so small as to not sway the figures, so I don’t filter them out.

This means of course that the growth from new congregations aren’t included, but I hate to say that doesn’t account for too much.

For this set, the 2003 membership was 149,705; the 2006 membership was 152,669: a three-year increase of 2.65% A bit worrysome.

But some churches, over three years, grew quite well. A couple, I note, grew after shrinking quite badly in the few years before, but they did come back, and some churches never do. The top three in four categories are:

Large. Over 550 in 2006.

  1. All Souls Church, Unitarian, Washington, DC. 401 to 636. 158%
  2. White Bear Unitarian Universalist Church, Mahtomedi, Mn. 398 to 560. 141%
  3. Jefferson Unitarian Church, Golden, Col. 531 to 701. 134%

Mid-sized. Between 150 and 549 in 2006.

  1. Unitarian Universalist Church of Northern Nevada, Reno. 123 to 184. 150%
  2. Cedars Unitarian Universalist Church, Bainbridge Island, Wash. 106 to 154. 145%
  3. Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Fredericksburg, Virginia. 123 to 175. 142%

Small. Between 35 and 149 in 2006.

  1. Foxborough (Mass.) Universalist Church. 24 to 52. 217%
  2. Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Swannanoa Valley. 45 to 86. 191%
  3. Gaia Community, Kansas City, Mo. 21 to 40. 190%

Very small. Under 34 in 2006.

  1. First Parish Universalist, Malden, Mass. 10 to 30. 300%
  2. Big Sky Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, Helena Mt. 17 to 32. 188%
  3. Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, Austin, Texas. 14 to 24. 171%
Posted on

Why I don't see a monastery working

Recently, one proposed solution to the ills that have befallen Unitarian Universalism is forming a monastery, or more than one. An odd choice I thought, as we derive from Protestantism, which historically has valued the family over the monastery as the venue of spiritual development. I’m reading Jane Jacobs’s The Death and Life of Great American Cities, a classic of unorthodox city life and planning. (In so far as the orthodox were misguided and self-deluding radicals.)

Referring to Ebenezer Howard, the proponent of “garden cities” in England, she writes (p. 17),

His aim was the creation of self-sufficient small towns, really very nice towns if you were docile and had no plans of your own and did not mind spending your life among others with no plans of their own. As in all Utopias, the right to have plans of any significance belonged only to the planners in charge.

I can’t think of any Unitarian Universalists — at least those with the gumption to see a monastery work — willing to accept those terms — unless each is the planner.

Posted on

Sighing over the UUMA

I got one of those “if you forgot to pay your dues, disregard this” letters from the Unitarian Universalist Ministers Association. They’re asking for $225, and I won’t be paying. A member of the Exec I ran into reminded me (so did the letter) there’s a 75% hardship waver, but I told her it isn’t paying (though that’s a lot of money) but wondering what services the UUMA provides that justfies the cost. I sighed after a read it, not angry but frustrated and . . . well, hell, yes I’m angry because the ministerial college needs all the help it can get.
Even when I was in a parish, I didn’t think the pre-GA workshops were that compelling, and the publications are minimal. The best reason I heard was — in so many words — “you ought to.” And that holds no water with me.

Chapter dues are astronomical, too, and now that I’m in a Day Job I haven’t had a chance to attend a meeting in almost two years. I don’t miss them on the whole and only two or three programs — one was by a locally-resident member of the Commission on Appraisal — stood out. That said, do you think I’ve gotten a phone call from any chapter member in that time? Even to say, “Wells, you cheapskate, where’s the check?” Nope. (I do get general emails about rallies to attend or wedding coverage.) I don’t want hand holding, but perhaps someone might be interested in what happend to me. Perhaps they all read this blog and already know.
Not that chapters have much in common with one another, but on the whole I’ve found official collegiality to be pretty cliquish, and as a former high school dweeb about two decades on, I can tell you that doesn’t hold any water either. Lord the blogosphere is so healthy.
So tell me — because I really am a team player at heart — what does the UUMA do that justifies the cost and the psychic room (the sat-upon franchise, to use the idiom) that excludes a different organization that might better fill its role?

Posted on

Pearlbear and many others

Michelle Murrain (Pearlbear) has received word from her United Church of Christ conference, meaning in so many words that “she’s leaving.” Not suggest even a hint of self-pity, accusation, or anger. It sounds like the right idea, and not too long ago, I thought about it, too. Goodness knows the slightly older UU Christian clergy know this story, and can recite a roll-call of those bright lights that sought better options with the UCC, Friends United Meeting, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the United Methodist Church, and — I’m thinking of a white woman here, incidentally — the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church. This is just the first time the story’s come up in the blog era.

Her story: Leaving Unitarian Universalism

Posted on

ChaliceChick's fixing UUA campaign and my thoughts

I’m sorry to say that — apart from an exercise in airing grievances — the fixing the UUA campaign didn’t say much. I think I’m with Steve Caldwell (or what he intimates at least) that first reforms should not depend on UUA Bylaws changes. I’m also not keen on proposing as a reform platform — streamlining the UUA or sharing best bractices — that reasonable people would already want, and which might be effectively attempted for want of spare effort and labor to accomplish them. None of the rest of the suggestions say anything to me, so I’ll not be voting.

Of course, this might be the longest sustained think-out-loud experience of people wanting to change UUA systems I’ve ever heard (boozy ministerial dinners don’t count) and that’s worth the effort in the first place. So thanks to ChaliceChick for kicking it off.
A thought: the suggestions seem to rest in the institutional and procedural “middle.” Not the small-scale incremental steps that you or I could take to begin a groundswell, and not the big meta-ideas that can help frame a general platform (and a real fight.) That’s a problem, because “middle” ideas are too big and too small to be the stuff of passion. I ain’t falling on the St. Louis headquarters or biennial GA sword, and I think few will.

And that’s the difference between a think-exercise (which UUs do well) and subtantive change, and perhaps we can keep this up and find our feet in subsequent rounds.

Posted on

Federated and community?

Later. Some revisions made.
There are two kinds of church with membership in the UUA that come across as odd to those unfamiliar with the concept: federated churches and multi-denominational community churches. Because they have multiple loyalties, they have a reputation to being aloof to denominations, making them that much less visible to those whose cares are more denominational.

Federated churches are communities of differentiated churches (they have their own membership rosters) that work together as a single congregation. Sometimes (but in practice, rarely) the constituent churches can be teased apart; sometimes they still have multiple buildings. (Which is why the United Church, Winchester, New Hampshire — of Winchester Profession fame — can sell its old Universalist building as the anchor for a new Universalist Heritage trail.) Because each constituent part has its own membership roster, there is almost always a majority and a minority party in federations. I’m sure this is stable in some places, but I can think of two federated churches that have dumped/lost/let-die-out its UCC and NACCC part respectively. But I’m guessing that Unitarians and Universalists are usually the one to loose because we don’t produce enough (Christian) clergy to be viably settled in them. A bunch of these are at the bottom of the UUA size list, though this might not be obvious. First Universalist Church, Hiram, Maine looks like a tiny (five-member, tied for smallest with the UCC-federated First Church in Deerfield, Mass.) unfederated church, but its minister is the same as the thirty-five member NACCC-affiliated Hiram Community Church. And this is the part I love: the Universalist Church keeps its own post office box. Adam, can you explain this phenomenon?

Multi-denominational community churches — as Adam also knows, as he pastors one — are essentially single churches; one roster, one budget — that’s a member of two or more denominations. Some were formerly federated churches, though there was a time after WWII when new ecumenical new starts were planned to be multi-denominational (none surviving that I know of that were Universalist or Unitarian, except with each other.) Usually, for UUA purposes, the reported number is the denomination fraction of the total membership.

As far as I know, the denominations and fellowships with which there are federations or community church arrangements are:

  • American Baptist Churches USA
  • Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
  • National Association of Congregational Christian Churches
  • United Church of Christ
  • United Methodist Church

Did y’all expect that?

Posted on

Gave nothing, why?

Twenty UUA member congregations gave (I refuse to say paid until covenant rhetoric is swapped for service provision rhetoric) nothing to the UUA Annual Fund last year. The list is here. This post probably plays up this fact more than anything said publically by the Administration, so I won’t say the congregations are being shamed. And since these churches won’t have delegates seated at General Assembly, it needs to be a matter of public record.

That said, why not give at least a token amount? I’d like to know if the churches have reasons, or if the money just ran out by the time that line item came up. A few things leap to the eye. The number of small town Universalist heritage churches. Is it a protest for being underserved? The three Canadian congregations; what’s the story there? Is it a protest for being eased out of the UUA against their will, or something along the lines of “no taxation without representation”? A few are federated; never a good omen for denominational loyalty, particularly if the other denomination (like the health-insurance-providing UCC) is offering better services. Some of the smallest UUA member congregations or “federated fragments” are on this list, but All Souls Unitarian Universalist Church (Colorado Springs) is “medium sized.” What’s the story there?

Posted on

Fix the UUA: Pay for what works

Money talks. You can complain and grouse, but money talks. It may not always be used well — and some volunteer or unfunded activities may produce profund results — but it shows what we value.

UUA leadership — staff, yes, but I’m thinking more of elected and volunter “true believers” — has been keen to talk about the “fair share” congregations ought to pay because the congregations are covenanted in community. That covenant cuts both ways with accountability to what congregations needs is less clear. Besides, congregations don’t have a covenant with the administration but with other congregations. (And I’ve heard grumbling from small churches that large churches have a fair-share formula option they don’t; it smacks of favoritism.)

But part of the problem is that, as a service provider, the UUA is almost a monopoly, and the overweening sectarianism that has grown up in the last couple of decades makes other options for service provenance less and less likely. Yet consider the Cathedral of Hope, Dallas, formerly the largest congregation of the Metropolitan Community Church, that went independent and has recently voted to join the United Church of Christ. Why? At heart, I believe because the UCC provides better services at less cost, and they’re more serious players. Money talks, and shapes how we fulfill mission. Even if the bulk of UUA member congregations won’t drift off for a better option — one may not exist — they (we) do deserve other options for service providing. That could be anything from consultants, companies, professional coops, website owners, multi-congregational agencies, ecumenical endeavors, independent affiliates, and the like. We could get radical and talk about alternate ministerial fellowship. (The MFC has the sole fellowship authority over the UUA, true, but since UUA members churches aren’t obliged to get MFC fellowshipped ministers, it follows there could be an indepentent fellowshipping process. Not likely, but it is possible, particularly in an underserved region, or small theological cohort.)

So here’s the point. Give, O Congregations, the Annual Program Fund what you think its services and value to the Association is worth. Fund what you use, even it isn’t something you have historically funded. Congregations, consider creating content (open licensed, of course). Oh, and Commission on Appraisal, you might want to look at this issue.

This is post #1200.

Posted on

Fix the UUA: Demand open standards and open licensed resources

Think of a traditional wedding service. “Dearly beloved . . . ” This image of the traditional wedding service (no doubt) became traditional because most American Protestants used some variation (depending on which edition was authorized when the adoption took place) of the US Episcopal Church’s wedding service as their own. To a lesser degree, the same is true of funeral services. All of this is possible because, in the United States, the Book of Common Prayer has always been in the public domain. It became influential because it could be adopted, even when changed. Look to the services in the “old red hymnal” and you would think the Unitarians and Universalists of 1937 owed as much or more to the Episcopalians as their own forbears. The Universalist prayerbook of 1894 is plainly a revision of the BCP of 1892.

When intellectual rights are relaxed — not even as far as public domain, but including such — it is possible for different people to build on common work, each giving it a particular nuance, without having to start from scratch. Sure, in theory, I could make a few cents licensing my sermons, but who would buy them? I created them for the glory of God and the edification of a particular congregation. Sermons don’t age well, as a rule. I would rather see someone take what they can, and re-craft it for another use than see it mildew, with all rights reserved. This phenomeon scales larger, too. An denominationally-minded people — without regard to which denomination — have a yen to make all the resources they need from scratch. What a waste. We could and should share ideas.

We talk about the UUA being a service agency, but I think it would help if we demanded of the administration and each other resources that we could share and develop. As I get a chance, I’m going to go back and re-license some of the more valuable and practical articles I wrote for this express purpose. Several bloggers have made all their works open licensed, to one degree or another. Let’s not be afraid to riff on one another. It will save us time, effort, and money. Use resources — like Wikipedia — and add to them. Google, through its advance search function, allows you to look particularly for these.

Likewise, I’ve not been very keen on ideas of information maintainance that (a) depends on proprietary software or (b) data in proprietary formats. It breeds lock-in, and stifles creative and useful alteration of our own data. So I’m not keen on any effort to centralize district data-keeping, or the use of commercial browse-in services. Better i think to agree to certain standards of data management, and then promote that software (whatever its provenance, cost, or license) that meets the standard.

Perhaps the folk at 25 can take a cue from their next-door-neighbor. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has made world headlines over its insistance that its data should be free, much to Microsoft’s ire and woe.