Co-Dependent No More,
Chris & Nan Johnson,
21 Jun 1998

Poster's Note

Some liberties have been taken with format, but not with content.

Subject: Co-Dependent No More
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 01:25:28 -0400
From: [Chris Johnson]
To: [UUCF Chat]

Well, it's been quite an experience. We've received messages from people who are obviously in as much pain as we about what's happening at UUCF. We've also received messages so wide of the mark that we couldn't help but ask whether they had actually read what we wrote, and if so, whether they understood what they read (leaving aside the question of agreeing or disagreeing). There were also some humorous aspects, most of it unintentional I'm sure:

• we were shrieked at by people demanding that we stop shrieking;
  
  
• we were insulted by people who accused us of insulting people;
  
  
• we were lectured on how to be good Unitarians by people whose understanding of that concept is fully commensurate with their 3 years in the church;
  
  
• we have been lied to by people who accused us of lying;
  
  
• we were told to "check the facts" by people who admitted they had no idea what the facts were;
  
  
• we were told what our feelings and motives are by people who admitted they had never met us;
  
  
• we were warned to show more respect by people who had none to offer;
  
  
• we were condemned for condemning the actions of a bully;
  
  
• and we have been told to shut up by people purportedly outraged at the suggestion that they favor censorship over unfettered communication.
  
  

But in the midst of all the hoopla, I began to feel uneasy: not because I thought we were wrong--sorry, folks, but we're not, and way down deep you know it--but because the whole situation seemed--somehow--oddly predictable. Let's take stock of the major players:

1. An emotionally distant Father-figure who gets increasingly authoritarian when challanged, no matter how mildly or constructively;
   
   
2. A number of emotionally disconnected or dysfunctional people who look to Father for guidance, approval, and validation;
   
   
3. Those same people, following Father's lead, who admit no error, but interpret all criticism as being condemnation, and go to any lengths, including denial of reality, to protect Father (and by extension themselves);
   
   
4. And a growing number of "bad children" who are awakening to the extent and depth of the real problem, and are unwilling to play their assigned roles any longer. Their questions or criticisms are not addressed in a genuine manner, however, and so become ever more pointed and contentious. Their opponents do not search their heart for the truth, but instead fall back on vehement, not always very intelligent declarations of how everyone except those bad children are happy-happy-happy, so why don't they just go away?
   
   

For those versed in family theory, this paradym is a classic dysfunctional family, frequently associated with substance abuse, physical/emotional abuse, and mental illness. As with the members of a dysfunctional family, the members of the congregation are on the proverbial spot: Father is acting inappropriately again. Do we try to talk to him privately? Publically? Through third parties? What if our attempts at dialog provoke denial and further anger? Do we keep everything "in-house", or air the dirty linen? If some reach their dissatisfaction threshold and finally start objecting, do the rest of us "man the ramparts" and silence the protesters with our own junior brand of abuse, so as to hide the truth, and protect the Image? If so, for how long and to what extent?. Again, what if Father's rage gets turned on us? Will there be anyone left to defend us if we've already sent everyone with a conscience into UU exile?

It was when examining the problem in these terms that realized where I had gone wrong: like the "Good Son", I've been trying to save the family, in this case by "telling the truth" as I understood the truth. If I could just reach these folks, I thought, just say the right thing, make the right argument, enlighten the right email flamer,THEN they would stop being so afraid; they would in fact come to my understanding, and tell Jim to stop being a Lutheran and start being a Unitarian Universalist,. and become a healthy family. The Truth would set them free. So I thought.

Well, I give up. For a variety of reasons--fear, mostly, but also ignorance and even some garden variety ah, shall we say lack of mental prowess, it just can't be done. So you win, Dysfunction! I surrender to the power you have over the minds of too many good people at UUCF. I will no longer take responsibility for the church's problems as though they were my own, especially since no one asked me to or wanted me to in the first place: I will be co-dependent no more! This is, of course, more easily said than done. Part of me still wants very much to answer some of the lamer-brained emails we've been getting ... but what would be the point of that? So I let it go--but in so doing, I must let the church go, too. One by one the principles UUCF says it stands for are being abbreviated, subverted, shaded, and deleted; no one is doing much of anything about it besides wringing their hands (if that much), and it tears me up to watch it happen. And so my spiritual journey resumes ... along a different path.

amf/ Chris Johnson

Subject: Co-dependent No More
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 07:05:59 -0400
From: [Nan Johnson]
To: [UUCF Chat]

Chris was waiting for me to sign his last post but I had to sleep on it. I know he is right, but I refused "to go gentle into that good night." I couldn't believe that the church that helped me through my darkest hours could turn so cold. It is humiliating to have to explain repeatedly that you will have to make a minimal pledge because your medical expenses are eating up more than 10% of your spouse's income and you have none. It is wrong for the minster to pay "special attention" to those who are able to pledge 3% or more of their income--does anybody know if that is gross or net, what can you expense to get a lower baseline, or is it strictly 1040 AGI???

The love that supported me when I was at my neediest has gone with the wind. The people who loved me and stood by me have mostly departed. They knew, before I did, that the "abundant love" we shared no longer resides here. Hence, the arrest of a mentally ill member in the sanctuary, which seems to negate the concept of sanctuary and leaves a mark upon that place that will not soon be cleansed. Hence the cheers, another malcontent has been pushed from the nest, and the nest grows colder.

I cannot understand why anyone would make their "spiritual home" in a place where "membership" must be continually evaluated and closely guarded. It will certainly accomodate the individuals who prefer to reside in predictable little boxes, but what about those creative individuals who soar above your boxes and seek "truth" in their own fashion? In spite of Judy Harrison and her devoted followers, the music will die when truth becomes a prisoner. It is so sad that a church of great dreams and promise has fallen so low.

It is another death in our family, but we did the best we could. We cannot save you from yourselves but now that we have acknowledged the death, we can move on. Perhaps the gift of abundant love was not meant to reside in one place for too long. To those who wrote us with concern, our thanks and know that we are well. To those who wrote us in anger, look inside yourselves, for that is where anger is born. To those who are perplexed, pay attention to the yin and yang, they are not in balance here.

In Peace & Love,
       Nan J