After discussion with the author, this document was edited to assign the correct rendering to non-standard characters.
"Happy congregations are all alike. Unhappy congregations are unhappy in their own special ways." (apologies to Leo Tolstoy)
I agree with the two Bobs that there isn't much profit in comparing the situation at All Souls with that at UUCF. I have never met Dan Aldridge, and I know nothing of his leadership style, but it did not fit the expectations at All Souls. Jim Nelson's leadership appears acceptable to a majority of UUCF members, as evidenced by the fifth anniversary celebration and other expressions of support.
Having said that, I nonetheless agree with Ed that all is not well on Hunter Mill Road. Yes, the sanctuary is full most Sundays and the other buildings are bustling with meetings all week long. The congregation does particularly well by families. If I had small children or teenagers, I would probably stick around. In fact, I recommended UUCF to a recently-widowed relative of mine who is raising two young sons on her own in Reston.
It's the long-term members, especially singles and older adults, who are hurting. One elderly member says she was told, "Your day is over." Maybe so, maybe not. Long-term members with grown children have time, energy and -- lest we forget -- discretionary income. Without our support, UUCF will lose its hard-won wisdom, its institutional memory and its financial base.
I am dumbfounded by the continued assertion that "only" 20 or so members are unhappy with the new regime. Any politician will tell you that small numbers can signify big problems. We who signed the letter to the board last fall are the tip of the iceberg of discontent.
Who were the signers of that letter? They included a founding member of the congregation, a member of the Board of Trustees, two members of the Endowment Committee, a former Lay Minister for Social Action and two former Social Action Committee chairs, several veterans of the Worship Committee and the Chorale, and three couples who were married in the sanctuary.
We are people who loved this congregation. I ended my active involvement with UUCF last month only after considerable soul-searching. Our efforts at tactful criticism were met with dismissiveness and finally disdain. On Mother's Day we were characterized as troublemakers. I don't come to church to be insulted from the pulpit. (Although, in the current climate of spiritual anesthesia, it's a badge of honor to be considered a troublemaker.)
Another common observation is that we were not specific about what we wanted. In fact, we made several highly specific recommendations, some of which were carried out. The Lay-Led Worship Committee operated independently this past year, and the fledgling Social Justice Council was not controlled by the board (although why we can't have an open-ended social action committee that anyone can join still mystifies me). I can't speak to our recommendations about the Stewardship Committee and the Caring Committee.
Those of us who met last summer were like the proverbial blind men and the elephant. Each of us had experienced one or more pieces of the problem (an ear, a trunk, or a tail) but it wasn't until we began talking with one another that we grasped the full dimensions of what was wrong. I won't deny that some of the criticism has been inaccurate, strident or spiteful -- we're not perfect either -- but we felt we had the best interests of the church at heart.
We were gratified when the Board decided to appoint an Ombudsmen's Committee of former board members to investigate our concerns. At last, we thought, our complaints will be evaluated thoroughly and dispassionately, and the findings will be acknowledged by all. Indeed, we were very pleased with the Ombudsmen's report. However, even this effort was dismissed by Jim as barely worth notice.
The central question as I see it is whether the leadership is capable of viewing criticism as negative energy that can be converted to positive uses. I was encouraged by Steve Gold's president-elect's newsletter column, which acknowledged the congregation's problems in their full dimensions without denigrating or marginalizing the critics.
I want to close with a personal story. If you've heard it before, please forgive me. Five years ago I moved to Brussels on assignment from a newsletter publisher. With the local UU fellowship in remission, I found my way to the International Protestant Church of Brussels, a one-size-fits-all institution begun by United Methodist missionaries 50 years ago.
Although the IPC is truly international, it mainly serves the community of American expatriates living in Brussels. The minister at the time was a Methodist from the Boston area. The typical member was a Lutheran from the Midwest who had been sent to Brussels with his family by 3M or Dow Chemical or another U.S. corporation.
On my first Sunday at IPC, the choir sang Shubert's "Mass in G," a choral work I had sung with Judy Harrison. That was a promising sign. As for the rest, I hated it. I thought I had been transported by time machine back to the small town church of my boyhood. Everything I thought I had left behind -- the stuffiness, the Jesus worship, the idolization of the Bible -- was resurrected and transmogrified in a European setting.
After gritting my teeth and holding my nose for four months, I sat down and wrote the pastor, Scott Campbell, a two-page single-spaced letter telling him all the things I didn't like about his church. I was arrogant, sarcastic and rude. After all, aren't Uus superior to our benighted Christian neighbors?
In about the time it takes for the mails to turn around in Brussels, I received a five-page single-spaced reply. You're right about some things but wrong about others, Scott told me. Have you considered this? Have your thought about that? He ended with an invitation to join him in making the church a better place.
With that encouragement, I helped revive a moribund adult education program, launched a Sunday Lunch Bunch for singles, and organized a Passover Seder using liturgy provided by UUCF. I could not bring myself to become an IPC member, but Scott created a special "friend of the church" category especially for me. I made a generous pledge. When I visited Brussels last summer, I expressed my gratitude to the church by paraphrasing Scripture: "I was a Unitarian, and ye took me in."
This story has an epilogue. Three years ago Scott's wife was stricken with an autoimmune disease, and the family moved back to the U.S. for health reasons. Scott now has a church near Harvard Square where he ministers to the university community, including Methodist students at Harvard Divinity School.
On the morning after my daughter's graduation last year, I had breakfast with Scott and his wife at a Starbucks near the Square. As we sipped our coffee, he grew thoughtful. "You know, Steve," he told me, "that exchange of letters was one of the highlights of my ministry in Brussels."
Secure leaders reach out to their critics. Insecure leaders fear and attack them. For me, that's the real issue at UUCF.