Coffee Hour

chutney says:

Would any serious harm come if we moved GA to every two years? Seems like it would save a lot of cash.

Ballou says:

I think this year, GA is taking greater steps to reach out to the commnuity at large. The moving of the Service of the Living Tradition is part of that reaching out. I think it's in keeping with our principles to talk about the justice concerns in the communities we visit and can help to grow the movement further.

It seems like many UU's tend to focus on their own churches rather than the movement as a whole (this blog notwithstanding) on a national level, where we can also do important work. I feel like GA is just such an important event in terms of holding the denomination together that letting it go would lead to even further isolation between the congregations.

Will Shetterly says:

I had hoped to go to GA this year. Time and money are preventing me, too.

This is especially frustrating since I'm the Prez of my church's Board. I admire Sinkford's wish to get all the prezes there. But it's a mighty expensive weekend, even if they kick back $250 afterward--and they don't seem to realize that for some of us, fronting $250 can be awfully hard. It's far more likely that I would be going if they'd simply waived my registration. Then I would've signed up early. With the commitment made, I would've worked harder to get there somehow.

Even though I haven't been to GA, I think it's important to have a regular event that unites our congregations. But I could see the argument for an every other year schedule that would alternate DAs and GAs. And I do hope the next GA is in a place where meals and rooms are cheaper than L.A.

Lynn Calvin says:

I'm probably going to try putting up a livejournal, trying to come up with a name (for myself) now. Desire Doty? Ordelia? Judeth? (all ancestresses

I've done official UUA webreporting for a number of years but I'm not this year.

Will, it's like big SF conventions like the Worldcon.

The problem with the non-big city sites is they don't have the capacity to feed us and house us especially at odd hours. Even in Salt Lake which did well by us, they rolled up the sidewalks at 9pm. (And I think it was Rochester where it seemed like 5000 people were all trying to eat at the one place that was open late -- a poor Steak & Shake.

I think every other year isn't often enough, things happen too slowly as it is.

Chris Walton says:

I'll be there, of course — I'm covering the General Assembly for UU World this year — but I doubt I'll be blogging much. It would be fun to meet bloggers and blog readers, though.

Gila Jones says:

Will, Long Beach is NOT L.A.! And it is pretty insulted at the implication! ;)

That being said, while the remainder of Southern California is considerably less expensive than Los Angeles itself, the whole area is pretty darn expensive.

Sean says:

I'll be there, but with lots of "hats" on and lots to do. I'll blog as I'm able.

Mark Brooks says:

The minister at my church, Davidson Loehr, criticizes the UUA as being more of a sub-branch of the Democratic Party than a religious organization. I haven't really shared his criticism until about the last six months of viewing the UUA website. It seems you have to go well past the Homepage to get to anything really religious - yes, I'm quite aware that political issues can also be religious ones, but of late IMHO there's been little of the latter.

Hence, my question: Is there any movement afoot in the UUA to address that, or is that just the way it is and is going to be?

Will Shetterly says:

Dunno about changing the UUA, but I keep pointing out to people that we've got to find ways to bring in conservatives, too: freedom used to be a conservative issue.

It does seem like a lot of UU Democrats assume that the church is only for Dems.

This could be a future discussion topic.

Philocrites says:

Mark, the best thing to do would be to tell your district trustee on the UUA Board about your concern. Tell your district president and district executive, too — and find people from other churches who also would prefer to see the UUA Web site put more emphasis on religious content than on political-action cheerleading.

I wouldn't try to do this work through the UUA's conservative affiliate groups — the Conservative UU Forum, the American Unitarian Conference, or the theological-identity affiliates that sometimes get pegged as the "conservatives," like the UU Christian Fellowship — because they can be perceived as wanting to pursue a different political agenda. Instead, point to the religious content you find most helpful and emphasize that you wish it were more prominent on the main site.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and it may be that at some denominational levels the political activists draw attention to themselves better than any other constituency.

Steve Caldwell says:

On 21 June 2004, Philocrites wrote:
-snip-
"The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and it may be that at some denominational levels the political activists draw attention to themselves better than any other constituency."

Or maybe the current level of UUA social justice activism reflected in GA business simply results from an open and democratic process.

Assuming that there's a UU "silent majority" that's against the social justice activism, how would we discover their views and implement these views through the current GA process if this "silent majority" isn't willing to show up, speak up, and vote?

Personally, I doubt the existence of a "non-political" or "conservative" UU "silent majority" that is being frustrated by a numerically smaller "social justice activist" contingent. But this issue raises other questions:

1. Should an association of congregations like the UUA be involved in social justice activism? If so, what limits should we place on the issues we are concerned over? In other words, should we totally reject the current UUA social justice framework for the American Unitarian Council's rejection of all activism except for " ... in narrow instances where government is directly affecting religious practice." Or do we look for an answer that's less extreme than the AUC's restrictions on activism?

2. Assuming that we don't reject our current UUA social justice activism, how do we handle a voting system on highly charged issues with grace? Since majority votes produce "winners" and "losers," how do we deal with the concerns of the minority so they still feel part of the wider association? Do we look at other voting models like consensus, requiring super-majorities for social justice positions, ratification by both a majority at GA and also a majority of district business meetings?

As a note, these concern aren't limited to just UUA social justice work. The United Church of Christ also deals with the same concern when dealing with social justice issues in their denomination as well. They have a very organized traditionalist affinity group that's very upset with UCC liberalism and UCC work with the UUA on OWL.

Matthew Gatheringwater says:

It is appealing to frame debates about activism within the UUA in terms of democratic process. After all, our value for the democratic process is right there in our Principles and Purposes, and it is an intrinsic part of the way our congregations and larger religious association is organized. The real question, then, is whether or not our value for the democratic process trumps all of our other values.

Democratic process is only a partial answer to how we do social justice and no answer at all to the question of why. You brought up the UCC. Another example of the limited usefulness of the democratic process is the Southern Baptist Convention, also a religious group organized around democratic principles. Sophisticated political conservatives have wrested control of the SBC, defining the group more and more conservatively in religion, politics, and culture. And they did it democratically. Through a process of incremental radicalism, vocal conservatives increasingly defined the public nature of the group while liberals and moderates fled. Meanwhile, new and more conservative members were being attracted to the group, further entrenching the SBC conservatives. Clearly, just having a vote is no guarantee of stability or that a religious group will remain true to its principles. Religion is more than a club (or a mob, as the case may be) and so we must constantly remind ourselves of why we placed such a high value on democratic process in the first place. Otherwise, Unitarian Universalists will continue their own process of incremental radicalization and marginalization--in the opposite political direction to the SBC.

I used to think that the democratic process was enough, but I had a religious experience that changed my mind. I served on the board of a fellowship considering being a congregation officially "welcoming" to sexual minorities. The question arose as to whether or not the board should call a vote on the issue. The problem was that a small but adamant minority opposed the welcoming program. "So what?" I asked, full of righteous zeal. "We have a majority. We can win. Let's call the vote." Fortunately, grayer, wiser, heads prevailed. One member of the board took me aside to explain: "We aren't here to win votes. The purpose of our congregation is to win hearts and minds."

The vote was postponed. Meanwhile, a lot of quiet diplomacy went on. Conversations over dinner and coffee hour. Creating opportunities for the people opposing the change to really be heard and then finding ways to address their concerns. Education. Persuasion. It really wasn't much of a delay. A month or two, as I recall. When we finally did call the vote, the support for the welcoming program was nearly unanimous and even the people who didn't agree felt strengthened, rather than alienated, by the process.

I'll never forget that advice. It is the basis of my own determination to find more representative and more loving ways to pursue social justice within in the UUA. I'm still ashamed to think I was so full of my own self-righteousness that I was willing to substitute power for persuasion, and for what? As if gay and lesbian folk can't tell the difference between a congregation that is 60% welcoming and one that is 99% welcoming!

Matthew Gatheringwater says:

Now that GA is over, I'm curious to hear the impression of folks who were there and responses to reports about the event.

Did the Open UUA project get approval?

What do folks think about the new social witness procedures?

Peter Bowden says:

At GA there was a very strong and anticipated focus on the importance of small group ministry (a.k.a. covenant groups -- NOT Coven groups, that's something else entirely).

There was also a new term floating around and was used by President Sinkford and many UUA Staff.

Radical Hospitality.

What is this? Well, to me it is the same ol' thing we've been trying to get churches to do for years.

Though it is not a new concept, it does sound better than "be friendly stupid, or they won't come back to church!"

Expect this term to be around a while. It is also the title of a book which found its way into some UUA staffers hand.

PB

Joanna Crawford says:

Just found Coffeehour. Way cool! I went to GA for the first time, and was the first person from my congregation (6 years old) to go, so I kept a GA blog -- Thoughts from General Assembly Long Beach 2004.

I'd like to get a list of folks keeping GA blogs next year, ahead of time. I'm the webmaster for the Southwestern District, where GA is next year, so maybe we'd have it linked from that site. Dunno ... might be too risky for an "official" UUA website.

Definitely want to email the planning committee and request that they please, PLEASE work out an agreement with the sponsored hotels that they not charge for internet access. I was at the Hilton and it was $10 a day to get online. Holy moly.

On the UU Leaders list this week, we've been discussing the difference between "Connected UU's" (those that go to UU events like GA or conferences, or are on UU lists and blogs) and "Local UU's" (those who might be very active in their congregation, but don't venture to the outside UU world.)

I see a great advantage in being a Connected UU ... want to get more Locals to dip toes into the waters of UU events. Hoping reading blogs of people going to GA will encourage more to attend.