On the UUA Professinal Ministry (priest, ritual, reject, tradition)

[Davidium]

(begin part 4)

Are they charged to this (in my opinion) holy task by the Seminary they graduate from? No, as not all UU ministers (or even most) graduate from UU Seminaries, this is patently untrue. The seminary is a school, not a church. It is a place where a future minister is “formed”… that is, given the tools necessary to be able to perform the role of the minister I just described. It is the place (hopefully) that the future minister realizes how to draw upon his own inner wellsprings of strength, as well as to draw from the strength and support of those around him, to be the servant of a congregation. Seminaries are the place where one is formed into “a minister”, but they do not grant you the authority “to minister”.

Does the charge come from the Ministerial Fellowship Committee of the UUA? Though saying this may get me in trouble some day when it is my turn to face the inquisitors of the MFC, there is nothing more holy about them than there is about you or I (or perhaps even my cat). No, the MFC only grants a learned opinion on your capabilities and training as a minister, but they do not grant you any special “charge” or “authority” to minister. All they can say is whether or not they see the potential to fill that role within you. The idea that such a charge could be granted by a bureaucracy, no matter how well intentioned, is abhorrent to me.

Does the charge and authority to minister in our faith come from within us? The answer to this is both “yes” and “no”. All of us, whether we are members of the professional ministry or not, can find within our own souls and spirits the “authority” to minister. UU’s do this all the time, in the ways they choose to care about and help those around them.

Rev. Evan Keely once asked me, as I embarked on the path towards ministry a very important question. He asked me “Why minister? Not why be a minister, or why be a chaplain, but why minister to others at all?”

I had not thought about this, but my answer just sprung from me… “Because I am going to do it anyway” I said. I had realized that there was something within my soul that called me to minister to others… to caring about the needs and feelings of others. A desire to help others become more than they are, even as they help me to do the same. So in one way, my charge to “minister” comes from deep within me.

But this is no different a charge than that of anyone who ministers to others, be they a UU minister or a person who sits with a friend hurting from a broken relationship. This call to personal ministry can come to each and every one of us… and it does not charge one to the special role of the professional minister, who’s duties and responsibilities I earlier described. It can put you on the path to that role, but it does not charge it into your care.

No, there is only one place that such authority to be a professional minister can come from in our faith. Only one place that the professional minister can find that charge… and only one group that can choose to “ordain” the minister to that role and grant the minister that authority.

The only group who can extend that holy authority and sacred charge to a professional minister is the congregation itself. It is from the members of a church, fellowship, society, or congregation that our ministers gain that duty, privilege, and responsibility… And unless the minister voluntarily surrenders that authority and charge, only the congregation who gave it can revoke it.

In this way we are different. Our call to minister comes from within us, within our own souls… our call to be THE MINISTER of a congregation can only come from one place, the members of that very same congregation. A minister derives his authority from the consent of those he ministers to, and from no where else.

A minister who is failing to minister to those who called him, is failing in his duties. Far from being the shepherd, the father figure, the direct representative of God, I believe the UU minister is the ultimate in Servant. He or She voluntarily chooses to place the needs of the congregation they serve above their own personal wants and desires.

Ministers who preach based upon their own theology and not the needs of those in the pews are failing in their charge.

Ministers who lead congregations down paths of social action based upon their own personal feelings, not the feelings of responsibility of the congregation are failing in their charge.

Ministers who attempt to change a church’s liturgy to fit their own proclivities, instead of understanding the liturgical traditions and needs of the church they serve are failing in this charge.

I am not saying the minister is not a leader of the congregation… in fact, the minister is called specifically for a leadership role. But in looking to describe my view of this leadership role, I must resort to language not terribly familiar to many UU’s… I’m afraid I must resort to military terminology.

In a military unit, the unit’s commander exerts tactical control, but often not strategic control. Strategy is the concept of what needs to be accomplished, and tactics are how those strategic goals are accomplished.

Now, in my view the minister should exhibit “tactical leadership” and “strategic input”. Ministers are members of the congregations they serve (in fact, one recipe for ministerial disaster is for a minister to try and serve a congregation he has never really and fully joined). As such, they have a voice (ideally and equal one, but it is not a perfect world) in the decisions as to the goals of the congregation, what their mission is, what social action causes to take on, the overall tenor of worship within the congregation, and indeed all the aspects of church governance. But in such strategic decisions, the minister’s voice is one among the many other members of the congregation. Now, a wise congregation would look to the minister as a learned advisor on such issues, but “strategy” of the church must be decided by the church as a whole, or by their elected representatives through a “Board of Directors” or “Trustee’s” of some kind.

It is in how to implement strategy that the professional minister should come into the true leadership aspect of the role. The members may decide they want to take a stand on a social action cause, but the minister should lead the congregation in just how to take that stand. Sometimes that “leadership” will be direct and hands on, and sometimes it will be by “equipping and supporting” other members in doing so. And the minister must be able to take that leadership role even if the social action cause or other strategic decision the membership decides upon is not the one the minister would have preferred.

This comes to the core of my belief about the Unitarian Universalist professional ministry, where I differ from many others, and where I know I will also have to be very watchful and careful to live up to. And that is that the professional minister must realize, deep down into his or her soul, that being a minister is about others… not about themselves. Your strength to perform in that role comes from within you, but your ministry must be about those you are called to minister to… those you are ordained by… those who have placed that special charge in your care… those that have granted you that sacred authority. The professional minister must realize that they lead the congregation they serve, but the congregation does not follow the minister they hired.

I always have loved that old joke about the politician who sees a mob of people running somewhere and says “There go my people! I must find out where they are going so I can lead them!” But what we say with derision about a politician is, in my belief, the sacred charge of the Unitarian Universalist minister. We are called to help bring forth that which is within our congregations, and to enable them to be more than they ever could be singly. To paraphrase Rev. Patrick O’Neil, we are called to ignite our congregations, to enable them to “catch fire”.

The Unitarian Universalist professional ministry serves a sacred and necessary role, one which our association would miss dearly if we did not have it. But that role, and the authority to perform it, is different than the traditional Christian minister. Our call to minister comes from the divine within us, not from some outside source. Our authority to minister comes, not from above us in some hierarchy, but rather directly from those whom we minister to. Our ministers are radically different, because the faith they serve is radically different. We need ministers able to learn from the past, but cut ties with the egoism and adopt the role of the “leader-servant”.

And, as if this were not enough… as if the role I have laid out here were not quite demanding enough… we need them to do one more thing. Something that Seminary cannot teach them, something that the Ministerial Fellowship Committee cannot inspire in them (but it hopefully can see if they have it), something that a congregation needs to nurture in the ministers they call, but cannot start within the minister themselves.

We need Passion! We need Fire! We need the flaming chalice to symbolize not the “light of reason” but the “Fire of the soul!” We need ministers who, beyond filling a role, do so because if they do not call forth what is within their congregations and put it into action within our world they will be burned up by flames from within themselves. For without that passionate fire from within, how can they ignite their congregations? And without our congregations being on fire, we are failing in our charge to be the beacon of Liberal Faith in this dark, cold, and uncaring world.

And if you do not feel that call to be the Passionate, On Fire Leader-Servant, are you truly serving the world by putting on the stole?

Sincerely, and yours in faith….

David Pyle

(End of Essay)

[PantaRhea]

David,
I read your essay on the site you posted previously. Although there is some nice sentiment in it, I couldn't find anything in it which addressed those areas which I find objectionable. Although I appreciate the difference between a "covenantal faith" and a "doctrinal faith", I don't find much difference between them in actual practice. I would think that the very idea of a congregation gathered together to express a covenant relationship would immediately rule out the practice of gatherings centered around a sermon.

Yes, I have pre-conceived ideas. We all do. Mine are just different than yours. I find very few people who can even begin to conceive of doing "church" without hearing a "sermon". It seems to me, based on my experience in UU churches thus far, people want to play the "church game" (think of "game" in the context of Wittgenstein) which requires the hearing of a sermon, but without the traditional substance (hearing the "Word of God"). It makes a convenient match - those who want to hear a sermon and those who like to hear themselves speak.

It also seems to me that there is a difference between being a "leader-servant" and "servant leadership". The former seems to me to be just another form of paternalism, the latter is the exercise of leadership in a new paradigm.

Considering the fact that time is valuable and the importance of using time for that which is most effective, which do you think provides the greatest opportunity to build community, produce critical thinking skills, and transform lives - weekly monologs primarily from the same person, or facilitated dialogs in an open and caring environment? Which practice will produce the greatest results in a congregation - the practice of passively listening to a speaker, or the practice of elucidating, educating, comforting, leading, representing, motivating, counseling, inciting, and sometimes even disturbing one another as we seek to serve (minister to) one another?

[PantaRhea]

Originally Posted by lilithu

Well, I guess that's why we're congregational. Because for me, when I was at a congregation where the minister exerted little apparent control and services were less cohesive, I was fantastically uninspired by UU.

Of course that would be the case if the structure of services remain centered around a dominate leader who failed to lead. Keep in mind that I'm not referring to church polity, but the main service - the service with the most exposure. Surely you wouldn't disagree that the clergy person dominates that service?

Originally Posted by lilithu

What do you consider to be a "better" method of leadership?

Excellent question!! Although it's somewhat depressing to me that it should even have to be asked. Unfortunately, the idea of 'leadership' is so often connected to our feelings of dependence and need for control that even if we are exposed to 'better' methods of leadership, we don't recognize it as a form of leadership. One way to answer the question might be to establish what it is that is paternalistic about the traditional form of leadership and then ask what leadership might look like if it wasn't paternalistic.

Originally Posted by lilithu

However, a sermon directed to 500-600 people is not the right medium for a discussion.

Which is exactly my point. So, why is the sermon generally considered to be the main part of a church service?

Originally Posted by lilithu

The best sermons provoke thought and action, so it is by no means just a passive bit of entertainment.

I agree that the 'best sermons' provoke thought and action - however, there are few 'best sermons' and consequently rare occasions where thought and action are provoked. Most sermons are forgotten before the congregation walks out the door. One way to challenge this assertion would be to simply survey a congregation an hour after a sermon and ask them to write down the main points of the sermon. The sermons which are most remembered are those which are the most entertaining.

Originally Posted by lilithu

Who says that it takes place solely outside of the congregation rather than within it?

Nobody said it takes place solely outside the congregation. However, what is it that distinguishes a clergy person from another person in the congregation and especially qualifies him/her for ordination? Isn't it training at a seminary?

Originally Posted by lilithu

As for passing something on to others with a desire to serve and minister, of course we have that.

Really? I'm referring to the 'special training' which goes on at the seminary - not the countless committees one is always being pressed to join. How many 'Reverends' do you know who are actively sharing the training they have received with others in the congregation who show an interest for THAT kind of ministry. Often such people are seen as a threat to the position of the Minister. And that is because the kind of authority the Minister has is a competitive type of authority - meaning that the more of that kind of authority one has, the less others have. It is the opposite of an empowering type of authority.

Originally Posted by lilithu

Maybe in your congregation. Not in mine. (You really don't seem to have a positive view of the laity either.) Sure, there is always a significant portion who think of sunday services as a "consumer product."

Well, why is that? Is it the fault of the 'significant portion', or is there something about the structure of the services which might lead them to think that way? Might it be because what is advertised and what people expect to receive as the main product of 'church' is the sermon? Would you deny that the task primarily expected from the Minister is the production of the sermon? If only one person in the congregation is involved in the main product, doesn't that mean that the majority of the congregation are consumers?

Originally Posted by lilithu

They get what they expect out of it and no more. But sunday services are not the entirety of our ministry.

No, just the primary part. Everything else is auxiliary.

Originally Posted by lilithu

I honestly do not see this male domination of which you speak of.

You left out a very important word - pattern. The pattern of male domination is exhibited in the sermon.
"For most men, talk is primarily a means to preserve independence and negotiate and maintain status in a hierarchical social order. This is done by exhibiting knowledge and skill, and by holding center stage through verbal performance..." - Deborah Tannen, You Just Don't Understand, 77

Originally Posted by lilithu

At the moment, UU has more women entering the ministry than men. I have seen many strong women at the pulpit: Rebecca Parker, Emily Gage, our own associate minister. My understanding is that many feminists have given up the institutional church because they have given up Christianity. (Not that I necssarily agree with that either.)

Perhaps the reason they have given up Christianity is because it is a male dominated religion with a male god. You seem to have missed my point that women who want to enter the ministry can only do it by accommodating the demand for a male form of leadership.

Originally Posted by lilithu

And no one here advocated giving "total control" to the clergy. If that were what I believed, I would have never started the previous thread.

Again you missed my point. The clergy have "total control" over the conversation when they produce their monolog.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by PantaRhea

Again you missed my point. The clergy have "total control" over the conversation when they produce their monolog.

I did not miss your point. I absolutely disagreed with you. Our minister has control because we allow him that control. His authority comes from us. And if there is something that the congregation absolutely wants, we will get it. Need I remind you that we are congregational?

And while a sermon is not a discussion, it is most certainly not a monologue. Ministers do not live in vaccums, unaffected by their congregations. Even if they have total control over their sermons, they are writing them in response to a conversation with the world and most definately with their congregation. I can't count how many times I've heard some comment that I've made to either of our ministers show up again during the Sunday sermon or the congregational prayer or something else, not as a quote of me, but as a response to what I've said. And I know it isn't just little ol me that they respond to but many many congregants, people who bother to make their voices heard. Sure, my senior minister and I have been butting heads over pluralism, and from my perspective he's not responsive enough in that regard. (I'm sure from his own perspective, he's been overly accommodating.) But I know that in many other ways, he listens to me and to others. As does our associate minister. What the hell would they talk about Sunday after Sunday if they didn't listen to us?

And, again, I don't know what's going on in your congregation but in mine we are usually discussing the sermon after lunch and well afterwards. Even last week, people were still refering to our Easter sermon. They are not merely entertaining; they are thought provoking. True, I don't remember every sermon every week. But then I don't remember most group discussions either, even when I'm the one leading them. But when a sermon is memorable, whether for good or bad reasons, I tell my ministers, as do other members of my congregation. And it most definately affects the content of future sermons. It is a not a discussion; but it is a long protracted conversation.

I'm sorry, but you keep claiming that someone who leads (partly) by inspirational speech (sermons) is buying into the male form of leadership, whether they are male or not. As a woman who does not agree with this, I take issue with the implication that my disagreement is due to my buying into male-dominated mindset. You've bascially set up a circular argument where, in your view, anyone who disagrees with you is just proving your case. Just because religous institutions have been historically patriarchal does not mean that every aspect of religion is inherently patriarchal.

Oh and while I'm at it, a signifcant proportion of my congregation are active members, involved in covenant groups, adult spiritual development classes, and social justice activities, and yet never come to Sunday service. For them, these things are not "auxillary." And as I said before, by encouraging us to engage in things like small group ministry, I would say that our ministers are teaching us some of the skills that they learned in seminary.

[PantaRhea]

Lilithu,

I'm shocked at your defensiveness. I'm guessing that you perceive my comments as an unwarranted attack on something which you find valuable and in need of defense. I'm also going to assume that you are more offended by my style of persuasion than the substance of my arguments - so, I'll attempt a fresh start.

First, a few caveats:
- I don't think those who are given the title of "Reverend" have flaws of character in any greater degree than others.
- I believe leadership is vitally important and necessary.
- I believe some leaders should be supported.

I am opposed to:
- the division of a community (church) into two classes - clergy and laity.
- the priority of programs over people.
- the priority of institution over community.
- the priority of traditon over transformation.
- the priority of form over function.

And, just so you know where I'm coming from, my ideas are most influenced by Liberation (Feminist) and Process (Relational) theology.

So, if we are going to discuss "Professional Ministry" I think we need to look at its historical development. There are two very divergent historical views - one view (finding its greatest expression in the Roman Catholic Church) is that there was a distinction between clergy and laity from the beginning of the "church", with a first Pope, Bishops, Priests, etc., and that this distinction continues into almost all forms of protestantism. Martin Luther and Calvin, for instance, considered the questioning of this distinction to be a heresy worthy of the death penalty. This distinction meant that within the church community there was a certain class with different gifts, a different status before God, a different and special "calling", a special authority, and a different function for which they should be paid by the "laity". For instance, only the clergy could baptise, administer communion, and administer other "rites" of the church.

The other view is that the early (or primitive) church took seriously the understanding of "servant leadership" taught by Jesus and formed egalitarian communities which understood that because all were "indwelt by the Spirit of Jesus", the distinctions between male and female, rich and poor, origins of birth... all such distinctions which could divide the community were done away with. There was identifiable leadership, but it was leadership within the community based on a desire and ability to serve, rather than leadership over the community based on a different status. Unfortunately, when Christianity became a state religion under Constantine, this form of Christian community was forced underground.

The "clergy system" is based upon a certain tradition and a certain theology that very few Unitarain Universalists are in agreement with. And yet the symbols, images, and forms of the tradition and theology are maintained. Why is that? Is it because, even though the theology is rejected, the "system" is so powerful that it can't be transformed? Unitarian Univesalists are, in my opinion, so given to the modern concept of individualism, that it is difficult for them to address systemic evils. Instead, as Paul Rasor has pointed out, liberalism finds itself too ready to adapt to, rather than challenge power structures.

And that ends my "sermon" for now.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by PantaRhea

Lilithu,

I'm shocked at your defensiveness. I'm guessing that you perceive my comments as an unwarranted attack on something which you find valuable and in need of defense. I'm also going to assume that you are more offended by my style of persuasion than the substance of my arguments -

Yes, what I have heard is a consistently derisive tone towards people who I know work very hard, are earnest and sincere in their efforts, and people whom I care deeply about. Not only do I love and admire all of the ministers at our church - our two called ministers, and our director of social justice ministries, our director of children's RE, and the community ministers associated with our church - but I have several friends who have decided to join the ministry.

Now, if you asked me whether I don't think that there is something askew with us that so many UUs seem to want to join the ministry (at least at my church it seems like an inordinate number) I would actually agree. I suspect that for some the need to minister in a broader sense is not being fulfilled and so they look to officially sanctioned avenues. I think that is cause for investigation and adjustment.

However, what I have heard from you has sounded more like a personal attack on the ministry, implying that they are up in the pulpits, engaging in a patriarchal power game, in order to feed their own egos. And frankly, if you were shocked at my "defensiveness," you shoulda seen the first draft of my response, because I have grown increasingly shocked at your words. You seem to forget that the "class" that you attack is comprised of people, is comprised of fellow UUs, people who were laity before they studied to join the ministry. They didn't lose their human status once they joined what you consider to tbe the "upper class" and are therefore worthy of the same respect that you would afford all people. But then again, as I have noted, you don't seem to respect the laity much either.

Originally Posted by PantaRhea

so, I'll attempt a fresh start.

First, a few caveats:
- I don't think those who are given the title of "Reverend" have flaws of character in any greater degree than others.
- I believe leadership is vitally important and necessary.
- I believe some leaders should be supported.

I am opposed to:
- the division of a community (church) into two classes - clergy and laity.
- the priority of programs over people.
- the priority of institution over community.
- the priority of traditon over transformation.
- the priority of form over function.

And, just so you know where I'm coming from, my ideas are most influenced by Liberation (Feminist) and Process (Relational) theology.

So, if we are going to discuss "Professional Ministry" I think we need to look at its historical development. There are two very divergent historical views - one view (finding its greatest expression in the Roman Catholic Church) is that there was a distinction between clergy and laity from the beginning of the "church", with a first Pope, Bishops, Priests, etc., and that this distinction continues into almost all forms of protestantism. Martin Luther and Calvin, for instance, considered the questioning of this distinction to be a heresy worthy of the death penalty. This distinction meant that within the church community there was a certain class with different gifts, a different status before God, a different and special "calling", a special authority, and a different function for which they should be paid by the "laity". For instance, only the clergy could baptise, administer communion, and administer other "rites" of the church.

The other view is that the early (or primitive) church took seriously the understanding of "servant leadership" taught by Jesus and formed egalitarian communities which understood that because all were "indwelt by the Spirit of Jesus", the distinctions between male and female, rich and poor, origins of birth... all such distinctions which could divide the community were done away with. There was identifiable leadership, but it was leadership within the community based on a desire and ability to serve, rather than leadership over the community based on a different status. Unfortunately, when Christianity became a state religion under Constantine, this form of Christian community was forced underground.

The "clergy system" is based upon a certain tradition and a certain theology that very few Unitarain Universalists are in agreement with. And yet the symbols, images, and forms of the tradition and theology are maintained. Why is that? Is it because, even though the theology is rejected, the "system" is so powerful that it can't be transformed? Unitarian Univesalists are, in my opinion, so given to the modern concept of individualism, that it is difficult for them to address systemic evils. Instead, as Paul Rasor has pointed out, liberalism finds itself too ready to adapt to, rather than challenge power structures.

And that ends my "sermon" for now.

As I said in my last post, our clergy are called by our congregations, and our congregations can get rid of them if they do not serve their needs. This happened in my own church in the 90s. They are not assigned to us from some patriarchal hierarchy. And our clergy come to us from within us, people who are called by the Spirit. I submit that we already are much more in keeping with your second model than with the first.

I've read my share of liberation theology too, as well as pretty much anything I can find of Paul Rasor's including his latest book, and in general I agree with both. (Tho some voices within liberation theology are overly reactionary.) But I still don't agree with you on this issue. My "defensiveness" may be due to your tone but I would disagree in any case. In our desire to rid ourselves of systemic evils, I do not condone throwing out that which is good and uplifting just because its associated with the system. And you have yet to prove to me that the professional ministry is more oppressive than it is uplifting.

Because our church has grown so quickly and our pews are often overcrowded, we had a long-range planning meeting a few weeks ago to talk about possible solutions - muliple Sunday services, Wednesday services, etc. One participant suggested that we tear down our 180+ year old church building, the one with the bell cast by Paul Revere, and start over again with a sleek, modern 4-story building with an all-glass ceiling and a sanctuary that would seat thousands. His argument was similar to yours, that the building style represents a time of patriachal and racial oppression. It represents institutions that we seek to abolish. And therefore, the building must go.

My response to him was the same as it is to you - that you yourself are confusing form with function. You see the form of something that was associated with oppresion and therefore seek to abolish that form. (Kinda like feminists who insist on spelling "women" with a "y.") By focusing on externalities, you miss the true function. Tradition can be used to maintain oppression. And tradition can be used to provide comfort to those who need it. Our 180+ year old church building is a source of comfort to our members, both male and female, both black and white. Because it is the place from which we do our social justice work, we associate it with the causes of justice and equality, not with oppression. By the work of our congregation throughout that 180 years, the building architecture has been transformed from a symbol of white male dominance to a symbol of inclusiveness, and we hope to continue that transformation as we reach out to more and more people. Similarly, our ministers are a source of comfort to those who need it, and of power to change things. And this particular liberal will not forego power just because it has been misused in the past. My personal filter is not "throw out tradition and embrace change." My filter is "throw out that which is harmful and oppresive and embrace that which comforts and empowers." That means keeping those traditions that work. That to me, is the true spirit of liberation theology.

[PantaRhea]

It seems that neither of us can discuss this issue without revealing our emotional biases then, eh? I'll admit that my negative views concerning the clergy system are due to my theological understandings and personal experience. My experience has not been as positive as yours is.

I planted and then pastored a small church for many years - during which time I also served as a full-time Police Chaplain. I was very active in our local Ministerial Association and developed very close friendships with clergy from both liberal and conservative denominations. I'm very familiar with the clergy system from the inside.

I've had an interest in the subjects of power and authority for 30+ years, initiated by my military experience. I happened to have been drafted into the army at the time when it was making the transition to an all-volunteer army and, because of some of the atrocities in Viet Nam the military was struggling with its own issues of what constituted a "lawful order", etc.. As an E-5 in an E-7 slot I found myself in an unstable position of authority quite often. Also, I was the first (and maybe only) Police Chaplain to graduate from the Law Enforcement Academy in Wyoming and the issue of authority was a hot topic of discussion during many classes. My wife and I brought our children up in a "House Church" where I was recognized as an "elder" but issues of leadership were a constant struggle.

I held a belief in an omnipotent (all-controlling and dominating) God for most of my life - a belief I now reject. It wasn't until a few years ago that I began to understand that power comes in two different modes and that leadership structures can be based on one or the other. One is power in the mode of domination and control, the other is relational power, or the power to influence and be influenced. This understanding of power has only recently been explicated by Feminist Theologians (i.e., Anna Case-Winters, God's Power). Classical theology has held that Divine Power operates primarily in the first mode. Process Theology (again, with a new understanding) holds that God has only relational power and has no unilateral control over anything. There is a direct correlation between power in the mode of domination and control and maleness. Men have evolved with greater physical strength than women. This form of power is not evil in itself and its use is often necessary and beneficial. Unfortunately, this biological difference led to a difference in status between the sexes.

Human beings cannot function without structures of authority ('authority' may be defined as the legitimate or authorized use of power). In the early development of social structures in the biosphere, authority was based on the exercise of dominating power. The earliest social code was "might makes right". Recognizing that men could not control nature, nature's power was worshipped. A priestly caste developed from the human capacity for magical and superstitious forms of thought. Priests made the claim that they were "called" to be in a special relationship with the forces of nature or God. This privileged position was passed on to other males through the ritual of anointing, symbolizing the reception of God's authority. The priesthood was associated with sacrifice - the ultimate display of power in the mode of domination and control - the power to take life.

With the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D., certain forms of the priesthood (specifically the Aaronic priesthood) came to an end, and for the Jews at least, the end of animal sacrifice. What continued was patriarchal authority in Judaism, Islam, and Christian religion. The authority to take life remained a male power held by those who represented God as governmental rulers. With the separation of Church and State, only the State maintained the monopoly on the use of coercive force. Males in position of authority in the Church continued to represent the male God.
I'll continue later...

[PantaRhea]

Obviously I'm only skimming the surface of the development of the clergy system. I don't think there is much point in discussing how the "Reformation" was not a transformation of the the Church and primarily only changed the focus from the community to the individual. True, the established hierarchy was challenged, and I've heard from many UUs that its Professional Ministry is not hierarchical, although I doubt that many would argue that the "clergy" enjoy a higher rank or status (and authority) than others who serve in different capacities. When I was at GA, for instance, I met one young lady who had become a "Reverend" even though her primary interest and calling was in the field of religious education. She discovered that her lower status as an RE handicapped her and always put her in a subservient position to the "Reverend" who didn't provide her the freedom she wanted and needed in order to serve the church in her best capacity. (No, Lilithu, I really do not have disdain for the people who are clergy - it really is the system which bothers me. And, as I've said before, the clergy are victimized by the system as well as the laity.) The main point of my prior message was to show that the foundation of the clergy system is patriarchal.

The Commission on Appraisal of the Unitarian Universalist Association, in its report "Engaging our Theological Diversity", noted that theological differences between the Universalists and Unitarians were basically ignored in their merger. Nevertheless, it is recognized that liberal Protestantism was a common religious root. A very important question that needs to be asked now is,

"...whether consolidated Unitarian Universalism, especially as it has evolved in the last half-century, represents an extension of the historical theology of either Unitarianism or Universalism, or whether it is a denomination that is distinctly different from both its predecessors. "

I say it is different. It is distinctly pluralistic and not specifically Christian. The struggle is with how to prevent showing favoritism to any particular religion. There is special sensitivity toward Christianity because many who have joined UU have rejected the exclusiveness of Christianity. And yet, the primary service of most UU churches continues to be the Christian Protestant form of liturgy centered around a sermon - an order of service that differs little from that established by Martin Luther. They also hold on to a Protestant Christian form of clericalism. This clerical order, even if allowing women in its membership, remains as a symbol of a male God.

As a contrast, I might ask where the "sermon" and clergyperson is found in Buddhism, or in a Wiccan liturgy.