Forum on Making Whole-Congregation Statements about controversial social justice issues – January 20, 2008

# of TUUC members present: 27

Introduction by the Rev. Terry Ellen, executive director of UU’s for social justice for DC area:

Not yet talking about relationships to UUA resolutions, IRS information, statements made by the social action committee or ministers or individuals, banners at parades – theses are topics to be addressed at later forums

There is a useful grid made by Bill Gardiner that helps to formulate these issues.

UU history has a long tradition of honoring the individual conscience and a strong tradition of democracy (although not necessarily based on a 50% vote but could be on larger #) and on attention to the world now and not entirely a “world beyond”

First argument against a congregation making a statement – congregation should be a refuge from the turmoil and problems of the world; place of serenity and peace and bringing in controversial issues is a violation of that goal

Versus: church is a place of active engagement with the world, can retire and reflect there but is not possible to have a complete refuge from the world; church is a place of clarification, reflection, and action

Second against: individual conscience is violated when a congregation makes a statement on any issue as a congregation – violates individual rights and consciences; cannot impose its views upon any individuals because they have a right to their own view; since we impose no theological uniformity, then we should impose no ethical uniformity as well (2 camps: (1) congregation can worship and inspire and then individuals can do their own actions; (2) congregation can have classes and discussions but organizing about issues should take place outside of the congregations)

Versus: If only honor individual conscience then we can have no institutional goals, can’t even call a minister – must also honor group conscience, where we come together and agree to do things together; right of individual conscience is not our only purpose and principle – there are others concerning world and peace and democracy and the interdependent web; we are not isolated individuals; if institutions do not take stands and are silent that in itself is a stand (for instance, the silence of the German church during WWII was in itself a stand)

Third against: taking stands can divide congregations; there are institutional costs for taking stands

Versus: if a vote looks like it will be too divisive (if the vote would in fact be close), then don’t vote – more process is needed or perhaps it is not an issue to be taken on

Fourth against: retaliation due to a particular stand; on church property, against staff

Richard Gilbert’s Rochester Model: this congregation has adopted this for its social service activities with the Social Action Committee – where the congregation votes on a number of social service/justice activities for the year – see the Social Action Committee webpage for more details on these

There is a model and process that is used to come to these activities. Some criteria are included in the social action committee’s decision-making process.

Current Policy: modified recently – bring it up at a congregational meeting and majority rules or it can come before the board and the majority vote rules (if a board vote, there is a period of time in which the congregation is made aware of that vote by mail and if there are 10 people who disapprove of the board decision during that period of time, then the board position is overturned). The purpose of the board’s inclusion into this process is to make possible being able to respond quickly to issues when there is not a congregational meeting planned. The trustees have added to that policy – authority is given to the minister and the president of the congregation in emergency issues – examples – special collection for tsunami or Katrina victims – for actual emergency issues.

Is there an implied action when a vote is taken? We lack clarity on what actions can be taken on positions that are voted upon. What about for instance the “health care for all” issue, which TUUC has taken a positive vote on in the past.

Big thing that bothers people – church taking a public position like the sign out front or a banner in a parade – that says TUUC stands for …

Different from getting involved with social action projects, sermons, training

Question: how important is it for a church to make a formal position and does it matter – more powerful statement for the congregation to make a statement than an individual – is it worth it?

In the present system, should have a Sunday service or a congregational/town hall meeting for more information and education regarding it rather than just bringing it up cold

From break-through congregations example – one was very demonstrably active with social action/justice, really getting out there and being active – those who saw the video had some discussion about how that would feel for us as a group – would it energize us more? Would it draw more people in? Would it inspire growth?

How frequently will the church be asked to take a position? Is there a level of importance since there are SO MANY issues? How is that level determined?

è Urgent immediate question

è We’ve never done it so we really don’t have a precedent for it

è Would it be fairly rare?

è If it’s coming up before the legislature (ex: death penalty, civil marriage)

è UUA stands

è Say just before they come before the legislature

Concern: about a stand of the social action committee for instance, and the committee decides that they wish to parade about it; to the world it looks like it is a position of the entire church – how can we clarify this? How is the distinction made?

What about when the legislation changes – example is the health care for all stand – the legislation has changed

What about the sign: position is just for the sign

But we are a welcoming congregation – so is that position inherent in that congregational vote?

But at the time we became a welcoming congregation, signs were not a part of that.

Can we take votes about certain legislation or on certain issues

We need to clarify what we can take a stand on – only legislation, any issues, etc.

Congregational statements can be general statements (health care for all) or a specific statement with a specific action (civil marriage sign)

Why would a congregation take a stand on something? What relationship should it have to specific processes – legislation, etc.

TUUC has a utopian feel, many groups and ideas can co-exist but are going in different directions – can be different and yet stand together in the same community – we don’t want to destroy that

Energizing around something – how hard is it to explain what we as UU’s are? It is easy to say what we are not – taking a stand is a positive thing and gives us something positive to center around – want to treasure our individual differences and ideas

Want to have a number of things to subscribe to – sense of identity and unity, that we are doing something in the world

We as a congregation can be more than the collection of individuals and individual opinions – in the environmental rally, there was publicity about faith groups (not us) who were carrying banners – why weren’t we there?

UUSC: asked us to start a position and education about Kenya, last summer they were moving about Sudan – places to stand up and be heard and recognized.

UUSC, UUSJ, UULM – these are organizations that represents UU’s and are taking positions. (UU Service Committee, UU’s for Social Justice, UU Legislative Ministry)

The education is IMPORTANT – making efforts for education and conversation about issues before taking stands about them.

No complaints about social services actions by individuals – feeding the homeless, Sarah’s Hope – we do it as a group and about individuals – but is not controversial – we are good at social service

Issue to take precedence: civil rights issues (example same sex marriage)

What are we more interested in? Civil rights issues? Other kinds of issues?

Our SAC projects are reflective of where we stand – we support UUSJ, SAC is thinking of adding UULM which does support justice-related issues

It is not a direct vote in a specific issue, but we do put money towards these organizations and their work.

One possibility: at the annual meeting, we have a list of positions which would go out to everyone in advance, perhaps include the statements of conscience by the UUA that year, to give the congregation a chance to discuss all of these issues. One benefit: we would have annual meetings that would be INTERESTING!

Could get some feeling of where people stand on the issues. Perhaps move SAC vote to after a congregational meeting. What about denominational affairs. We could have 10 or so items on the list.

Process: how is this sort of decision made by such a large group – what about CONSENSUS or something similar. Should we have a commitment to a different sort of vote for controversial issues so that we do not alienate members? Do not like the idea of 51% carrying a statement that 49% do not approve of.

Congregation when they call a minister – uses a much larger percentage

The 50/50 vote can be made to change the percentage for a specific vote, for instance, for an issue, up to 80% or something like that.

It is important to have a meeting of this sort to talk about the issue without a vote before it comes up – not just a bunch of paper running around. Give it time so that everyone can really say what they think and really air their thoughts. It is fair to complain about the process that was taken before voting on the sign.

For a long time, many members complained that we did not have an social action or social positions that we took a stand on (years ago) – we can EVOLVE, we don’t have to stay the way we were last year, the way we were 38 years ago, we can change and develop

One concern: it seems that in the last 5/6 years, we have gotten many card tables. We can’t be behind everything – there are too many issues. There is a strong temptation that it could drift into a political club too easily. It is quite complicated. Both sides of the discussion has merit.

One response: Richard Gilbert’s model of choosing a smaller number of things

Would like to see it move towards the consensus process – there is a lot of diversity here (just look at all of the bumper stickers). We don’t want to lead to an unnecessary fracturing of the church over moves and statements as an entity. Achieving consensus would be much better for the church as a whole.

One found solace in the like political views but what about the diversity of opinions – it hurts to feel the fracturing and the differences.

Would not want the church to become involved in all of these things as a church. We do respect differences and different points of view – we have a tolerance for other points of view – even though we differ we can still be friends and can still work together.

We should be careful about taking positions on highly-political things.

Moral issues and political issues – we should be careful that the issues that we take stands on are truly moral issues and not just political ones.

Consensus valuable – calling ministers is that way, could use it to choose SAC year’s issues. Do not think that it would violate that 15/20% in a way that we could not support that diversity. But if 80/85% of us do support that issue, that is a very strong statement.

Concern about not taking a stand – slavery, civil rights, etc. – how does one make these decisions? What are the issues that would be embarrassing to not take a stand as a group?

There are ways that we can bring our opinions to the congregation – Adult Religious Exploration, forums

Space problem here at the church – WHERE do we meet to talk about this? If we want to have these dialogues, where to we have it? Must be on a Sunday…

Gardiner grid passed out – will get to that next time.

What brought you here? Do you have any final statements?

Didn’t originally come here thinking of political issues, but appreciating the principles, it is important that we are not silent in the world – would like a say as an individual, but what about when it is timely or if one disagrees with the position? How do we do this?

Consensus: can be very challenging – every single person agrees. Perhaps use a different word.

How long has UUA been doing statements of conscience. Lot of thought put into those – could we do more around those decisions?

UUA statements tend to evaporate – we should work with them.

We can EVOLVE and CHANGE.

Friendship as a metaphor for the church – lots in common but then don’t always agree with a friend and it hurts – will we hurt someone in the church in that way? But we really treasure our friends even despite differences – how can the congregation be that way?

Congregational inclusiveness - consensus

Human condition is poor – ex the war. The fact that one person is going to die is enough reason not to have a war.

Quote: don’t ask what the world needs – ask what is your passion and follow it. What the world needs is you following your passion.

Have to respect the positions of those whose passions just don’t lie there.

Other problems: not enough people participate in these discussions – how do we empower everyone to do their passions. The sermon today gave lots of information and different points of view and feedback – this was GREAT. In order to take a stand and be important politically is to have it coming from the pulpit and/or presented frequently in the church so everyone can start at the same base in terms of information. Perhaps every 3^rd sermon have a real issue/focus in that way.

Mission statement for the church: “choose your passion”

Voting as a congregation – are we dedicated to do that as an individual as well (like putting up a sign in our own yard)

The world is getting complicated – what are we going to do with this?

In favor of consensus because it takes a long time, time to get informed, hear all sides of the issue, leaves everyone fairly satisfied.

You have to figure out what to let go of and what to hang on to as an individual when supporting or not certain issues. With friendship metaphor, treasure the friendships here and outside the church even when don’t agree on everything.

Some processes are timely and need to happen immediately and others are longer term. Perhaps have different processes to deal with each.

Feel empowered, inspired, enlightened here at the church

We have some core values in this church/denomination/association – we want our values to not just live by themselves but to live out in the world because we believe in them.

We’ve gone beyond generalities – but there are some specific process items to put on the table:

Action items on the congregational meeting agenda each year (however many)

Board, individual committees, individuals can put forward resolutions for action consideration

Be a pre-congregation meeting in which these items are discussed – education

At congregational meeting, vote taken with 3 possibilities: yes, no, more education with a specific plan for that education and process; for a yes vote, a certain larger majority is required.

See an active denominational affairs committee again, more information about statements of conscience

Also want to keep the church together – don’t want to have a lot of differences and unhappiness – the process is important so that we don’t leave anyone behind and left out

Can be more active in not just treating the symptoms of social justice issues but also get to the causes and get active

Balance is important, not just rush through things and leave people behind

Should be talking between different points of view – should be a place where we can share ideas and respect one another’s ideas and points of view

Feel both isolation and agreement – have to find a respectful balance between and integrate our diversity into unity and tolerance

Setting priorities in what issues to deal with – how is that determined?

What are we passionate about?

We don’t have a creed but we do have a covenant – how we treat each other even with our differences