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

[Davidium]

Ok, I promised a thread for the discussion of the UUA Professional ministry...

Someone once said that certain armies could do nothing without it seeming like an invasion. It seems I cant answer a simple question without it becoming a sermon....

I started writing, and kept writing, and writing, and writing.

Until, what I came to was undeniably a sermon... and hopefully one day I will be able to give to an audience of ministers and future ministers. It is on my view of the UUA ministry, why and how it is different from traditional Christian ministries, why it is necessary to Unitarian Universalism, what the role of the professional minister is, and what we need our professional ministers to do.

As I was writing it, I had the feeling that it would someday be used as exibit 1 at my trial for UU Heresy! That's a joke, for those not UU's.

But, it is way too long to post here, I think. There is a reason for the word limit on this forum. And so, I will provide a link to the section of my journal that it is in. I placed it in the section that you can read without registering.

It is entitled "The Leader-Servant Minister"

http://dynamicdeism.org/tpst/viewtopic.php?p=266#266

I know a few of my friends here will be struck by a few things I have to say... and I also know that when I go before the Ministerial Fellowship Committee, they will discuss with me my saying they were no more "holy" than my cat. (No less, either) .

I look forward to any conversation that ensues. I think panta Rhea will see we have similar views on the authority of the professional ministry, but come to different conclusions from those veiws.

Yours in faith,

David

[michel]

That's a very interesting read, David. I do find the 'structure' of U.U a little difficult to understand though; your Faith seems to be centered from 'inner' spirituality (from what I understand), and I note your comments (Which seem natural from what you say) That no one U.U church will be exactly the same as another.

How does that 'work' when one of your people moves to another area ? - presumably, he will be 'overseen' by someone whose thoughts and outlooks might well be different - does this pose a problem ?
(forgive me if I have this wrong - I am aware of the fact that U.U doesn't particularly 'like' to be 'pinned down' - something with which I see nothing wrong, I hasten to add)

[Davidium]

Michel,

Perhaps it would be better to say that each different church has a different "flavor", or "emphasis". In that Unitarian Universalism is a non-creedal religion, but rather a covenantal religion, you will find that specific matters of belief are less important than the covenant (sacred agreement) that members make with one another. In other words, our faith is more about how we act with and relate to one another than about any specific doctrine of Theological/cosmological construct.

That covenant is expressed in different ways, but it always has the same feel. For some the covenant is represented by the UUA Seven Principles. While I share the seven principles, I think the UU view of covenant (also expressed as "right relations") is better expressed by the Affirmation fo the local church I belong to in Galveston.

"Love is the spirit of this church, and service is its gift. This is our great covenant: To dwell together in peace, to seek the truth in love, and to help one another."

You see for UU's, religious community is not about any specific belief, but rather about a way of relating to each other and to the rest of the world. Ours is a religion of action, not of any set doctrine. UU's find inspiration in many different religious philosophies, and each of us is inspired by different things.

I personally find my own theology has been influenced by Deism, Christianity, Platonic Thought, Marcus Aurelius, Confucius, Twain, and many, many more. Another UU might have a different mix.

Our commonality is that, no matter what our spiritual influences are, or what our specific beliefs are, they call us to live in relationship to each other and to the world at large in a similar way.

I was just thinking that my essay on UU Ministry might be a bit confusing to someone not as familiar to Unitarian Universalism. When I wrote it, I pictured in my mind my fellow students at the Meadville Lombard Theological School, a UU Seminary in Chicago.

But then again, beginning with a different version of the ministry might not be a bad thing afterall...

Yours in faith,

David

[PantaRhea]

Originally Posted by Lilithu

Namaste PantaRhea,

so what do you suggest we UUs do? Yes, the problem at our church is that we have a senior minister who controls what is presented on Sunday mornings and expresses a strong preference for the Christian tradition, which makes non-Christian congregants feel left out. Otoh, our strength is that we have a senior minister who controls what is presented on Sunday mornings and consistently crafts a service that is coherent and emotionally resonant. It kinda cuts both ways.

It's that word "controls" which bothers me - yes, it can be a strength. However, there are better methods (less paternalistic) of leadership than those which involve the use of that kind of power.

I would absolutely love for us to have more input from other ministers. Similarly, I would love to hear more people's voices sermons where the laity get to share their perspectives. But I agree with my minister that I don't want a religious smorgasbord where we sample a little from here and a little from there and never get very deep anywhere.

Your minister really said that? I'm going to try that at our next discussion group meeting (where we get VERY deep VERY often. "Sorry guys, but we don't want a religous smorgasbord here, and what I have to say is very deep. So, you guys are just gonna have to shut up and listen to me whenever we get together from now on." My experience is exactly the opposite. Whenever there is input primarily from the minister, the output is almost always shallow. It's dialog which moves us from the surface to the depths. Of course, one problem is that many "laity" are not used to thinking deeply on many matters because they have been resigned to sitting on their backsides and letting their minister do their thinking for them. And then the clergy complain because the laity are shallow?

I think the clergy provide a valuable skill in that they are specifically trained in these matters, to help keep us focused. It's not necessarily paternalism (tho I agree it can be). One doesn't need a personal trainer in order to excersize but one might find the experience much more rewarding with one than on one's own.

Doesn't it seem odd that the "special training" takes place outside the congregation rather than within it? Doesn't that hint, just a little bit, at "priestcraft"? While I appreciate "special training", I feel very strongly that it is something that should be passed on to others who show a desire to serve and minister within the congregation. What happened to the (biblical, but seldom practiced) concept that it is the responsibility of church leaders to "equip the saints"?
Also, I'm not sure your that your analogy of a personal trainer holds. In practice, the clergy person, taking the position of a personal trainer would be doing all the exercising and the congregation would be sitting on their backsides watching.

But maybe it's just because I can't imagine what we'd have without the clergy, other than a smorgasbord of people eager to share their views with the congregation. Usually the people who are most vocal, not necessarily the ones with the greatest insight. I'm open to suggestions but I'll say upfront that I'd rather not do spirituality by committee.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to imagine what an absence of clergy would be like because the pattern of male domination is extensive and has existed for a long time. True, there are women who have moved into positions of leadership in the churches, but they have mostly been forced to conform to the tradition. Many feminists have given up on the institutional church, finding it a hopeless task to transform the power structures. As far as the problem with the "most vocal" people is concerned, it is a problem which is found in almost any conversation between more than 2-3 people. And there are ways of addressing it. I don't happen to think that the solution is to give total control of the conversation over to the most vocal person (the clergyperson).

"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

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by PantaRhea

It's that word "controls" which bothers me - yes, it can be a strength. However, there are better methods (less paternalistic) of leadership than those which involve the use of that kind of power.

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.

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

Originally Posted by PantaRhea

Your minister really said that? I'm going to try that at our next discussion group meeting (where we get VERY deep VERY often. "Sorry guys, but we don't want a religous smorgasbord here, and what I have to say is very deep. So, you guys are just gonna have to shut up and listen to me whenever we get together from now on." My experience is exactly the opposite. Whenever there is input primarily from the minister, the output is almost always shallow. It's dialog which moves us from the surface to the depths. Of course, one problem is that many "laity" are not used to thinking deeply on many matters because they have been resigned to sitting on their backsides and letting their minister do their thinking for them. And then the clergy complain because the laity are shallow?

OK, I see that it's a mistake to bring him into this conversation since any misunderstandings as a result of my word choice is going to result in contempt directed at him. You can direct it at me as I said I agree with him. And pardon me but you do seem inclined to misunderstand me for the worse. Is your bias that strong?

I was not talking about a discussion group, I was talking about our sunday sermons and our own individual practice. Obviously, in a discussion group we would want input from a variety of people. And the members of my congregation are as good as any at thinking and discussing. I've been cofaciliating our UU theology class this term and am constantly surprised by and proud of how much people pull out of the papers we choose to discuss.

However, a sermon directed to 500-600 people is not the right medium for a discussion. The best sermons provoke thought and action, so it is by no means just a passive bit of entertainment. But it is still by necessity more of a one-way affair. And it needs a focus. Throwing in a little Buddhism and a little Native American and a little whatnot, simply for the sake of diversity, without thought to how they fit together, does not a good service make. That's what I mean about a religious smorgasbord.

Similarly, in terms of personal spiritual practice, one can pick from any number of traditions, but ultimately one must pick, or else one will never do anything. I meditate and journal every day (well, almost) and I usually do it the same way, only changing when I get stumped. That doesn't mean that I think that other ways are wrong or not worth pursuing, it's just means I've found something that works for me and I can't spend the rest of my life investigating all the different possibilities. And trust me, I have investigated different possibilities more than most people. That's what I mean about a religious smorgasbord.

Originally Posted by PantaRhea

Doesn't it seem odd that the "special training" takes place outside the congregation rather than within it? Doesn't that hint, just a little bit, at "priestcraft"? While I appreciate "special training", I feel very strongly that it is something that should be passed on to others who show a desire to serve and minister within the congregation. What happened to the (biblical, but seldom practiced) concept that it is the responsibility of church leaders to "equip the saints"?

Who says that it takes place solely outside of the congregation rather than within it? As Davidium said, the minister changes the congregation and the congregation changes the minister. I can definately see that change in our church on both sides. The training may start in the seminary (tho probably well before that) but it continues afterwards; the training occurs in the doing. Just because I'm dissatisfied with how one aspect of this interaction is going doesn't mean that it's completely static.

As for passing something on to others with a desire to serve and minister, of course we have that. I'm on so many committees and other projects that I can barely keep up with them, and they keep recruiting me for more! I assumed this was the same for all UU congregations.

Originally Posted by PantaRhea

Also, I'm not sure your that your analogy of a personal trainer holds. In practice, the clergy person, taking the position of a personal trainer would be doing all the exercising and the congregation would be sitting on their backsides watching.

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." They get what they expect out of it and no more. But sunday services are not the entirety of our ministry. We've got adult spritual development classes, geared specifically at "training" people to take part in their own spiritual development. We've got covenant groups, also geared at spiritual development and support. We've got numerous social action groups, because we recognize the spiritual aspects of service. And our ministers actively encourage these things; the analogy of the personal trainer fits.

Originally Posted by PantaRhea

Unfortunately, it is difficult to imagine what an absence of clergy would be like because the pattern of male domination is extensive and has existed for a long time. True, there are women who have moved into positions of leadership in the churches, but they have mostly been forced to conform to the tradition. Many feminists have given up on the institutional church, finding it a hopeless task to transform the power structures. As far as the problem with the "most vocal" people is concerned, it is a problem which is found in almost any conversation between more than 2-3 people. And there are ways of addressing it. I don't happen to think that the solution is to give total control of the conversation over to the most vocal person (the clergyperson).

I honestly do not see this male domination of which you speak of. 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.) But that is not necessarily linked to UU. 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.

[PantaRhea]

It's the clergy system I would like to see done away with - I think people in the clergy are adversely affected by it as well as the laity. However, I do think the position of the clergy attracts certain people with overly large egos. I also think most of the clergy are drawn to and dedicated to their career because of their love of others and community.

The Unitarian Universalists have generally rejected the concept of a male God. Unfortunately, many of the symbols of this belief remain. The clergy system is such a symbol.

I apologize for my sarcasm but it seemed like such a poor reason to monopolize a conversation. I know you weren't talking about a discussion group, and you were talking about "sermons" - but it's still a lame reason in my opinion to justify services centered around a sermon. Lectures are a very poor method of educating. As far as the other purposes of sermons are concerned, most of them should and could be accomplished in methods which involve "one-anothering". Although a sermon can have a place as an occasional event, when it becomes the main event I think we can be sure we are using a patriarchal system. I'm sure you are aware of the historical development of the use of "sermons" in the church and their theological justification?

There is so little time that most of us have for coming together with others and building community. Squandering the time by sitting and listening to sermons is... well, I think it is a waste of precious opportunity.

[Davidium]

Panta Rhea,

I disagree with your sentiment, as well as some of your pre-conceived notions. If the number of female ministers in the UUA has not surpassed the number of male ministers, I would be surprised. It is close, at any rate.

In my entering seminary class of 12, it is split down the middle... six guys and six gals.

I also think your adversion to sermons means that you do not understand the place that sermons play in our different kind of faith. You are still trying to judge Unitarian Universalism based upon the tradition and structures of a Doctrinal Faith. Unitarian Universalism is not a doctrinal faith, but a Covenental faith. Though we use some of the same terms, they do not mean the same thing in a covenental faith system.... just as the Rabbi certainly does not play the same role as a Catholic Priest.

I was not going to post it here, because it is long... but I'm beginning to think it might be essential to post the Sermon/Essay I wrote on this question here... I will have to break it up a bit, but lets see what I can do...

David

[Davidium]

The Leader-Servant Minister
David Pyle
5 October 2005

As a faith tradition, we Unitarian Universalists have inherited much from our Protestant Christian past. Our form of church governance comes from the Protestant Congregational churches we evolved from. Most of our churches use the protestant form of Sunday morning services. We often use the terminology of that tradition… “Clergy and Laity” “Minister” “Pulpit” .

While this does allow us a structure that is familiar to many who come into our churches that they know, that they are familiar with… there is also a danger lurking within this structure. We are not a Protestant Christian denomination. In fact, we have evolved into a new kind of faith… one perhaps not seen before on this wonderful planet of ours.

I am not calling for a revocation of our past… far from it. Those who know me know that there is a little part of me that will always remain a historian. But as we argue that the Bible must be looked at through the lens of reason, so too must we look at our own structures. We must feel the freedom to re-define aspects of this structure to fit the needs of this new kind of faith.

While we can learn from our past, we must have the freedom to grow beyond it.

There are many aspects this applies to… but one of the most profound for our faith is the role of our professional ministry. Some, in seeing the potential within our faith for the “ministry of all believers” (which I fully believe in), sometimes call for us to abandon the concept of a formal, professional ministry.

I believe this would be a mistake, just as I believe that maintaining the “traditional” protestant view of the ministry would also be a mistake.

As we so often do, we Unitarian Universalists must forge new ground… Or perhaps retrace ground once trod upon by others.

Traditionally, the protestant and catholic ministry have had the tendency to view themselves as somehow “above” their congregations… The shepherd to the flock, the parent to the child, the priest to the penitent. They also have traditionally viewed themselves as someone who has a “special” connection to the divine… something that cannot be accomplished by the members of their congregations…

We who aspire to the Unitarian Universalist Ministry cannot follow in this tradition. I believe that to do so will damage our congregations, limit their growth, and place us in positions that are not optimal in our desire to serve our congregations.

Serve our congregations…. In that lies the key, I think.

(End of Part 1)

[Davidium]

(beginning part 2)

While I support the current movement in the UUA to reclaim our ability to speak in language of faith, reverence, and worship… this does not mean we reclaim aspects of our religious past willy nilly. We are not, and will never become a purely “Christian” religion again. Christianity is one of the most important faith traditions in forming what it means to be a Unitarian Universalist, but it is one of many.

We are not simply a different set of beliefs, a different doctrine than traditional Christianity, but rather we are a different form or kind of religious faith entirely. Comparing Unitarian Universalism and Christianity is like comparing a car and a airplane. Both are methods of going on a journey, but they each do so in entirely different ways, and often go different distances.

As we are a different kind of religion… to put it in UU Theological language as we are a “covenantal faith” and not a “creedal faith”, we have to realize that the structures we will need in order to nurture that faith will be different as well.

The traditional Christian Ministry would be very, very damaging to modern Unitarian Universalism. Period. We simply are not the faith that such a ministry was designed for.

Now, before I go further, I think two disclaimers are in order. I am usually not one to “hedge my bets”, but honesty requires that I state this is my opinion, and I know many UU ministers and future ministers will disagree with me. That is ok, no one has ever been convicted of heresy in the modern UU Church… and I would consider it an honor if I ever was. A few years from now, I might even disagree with myself, as my goal in life is to remain that “permanent truth seeker” that Mark Twain claimed could not exist in his essay “What is Man?”

The second disclaimer is that, each UU Church is different, and each will need a different form of minister. There are some that will need a minister who is eerily similar to the traditional protestant Christian minister… or similar to a Jewish Rabbi. This is why the process of calling a minister is so important in our faith. Congregations must be free to find a minister that fits their needs, as much as a minister needs to find a congregation where he/she fits as well. An ill fit can be severely detrimental to both.

What I am going to say is less on how the minister should act (for that will be determined by the needs of a particular congregation) but rather it applies to how the minister should view their own role in their congregations, in the denomination, and in the world as a whole. In fact, in some ways, at least to those outside the denomination, our ministry needs to continue to be viewed as other denominations view their ministry. We have enough trouble being recognized as a religious faith on equal footing as it is in our inter-denominational relationships. Realizing we have a different form of professional ministry will just confuse them, and make it easier on those looking for ways to dismiss Unitarian Universalism.

In our faith, our professional ministry cannot claim exclusive control over the ability to minister. All of our members have the ability to be ministers in their own way. The existence of “lay-led” churches, many that have existed for more than 4 or 5 decades, goes to show this in our faith. Our tradition of the involvement of members in pastoral care structures, of members who lead their own social action ministries, our strong tradition of congregational leadership, the flourishing of covenant groups, and the amazing growth of the youth and young adult ministries goes to show that Unitarian Universalist Ministry goes way, way beyond our professional ministers. Therefore, for our professional ministry to try and assert the traditional Christian control over all ministry would cripple our faith.

In the traditional Christian traditions, it was possible for a minister be become a master of the doctrine of that faith. It is possible for the Christian minister to spend several years in deep study of the scriptures and Christian commentary, and that person would almost always then be the most learned person on that faith in their church. That is because the sources for the Christian faith are limited (some denominations