At the author's request, the posting by Alex Machina, 10 May 1999, was modified slightly from the original e-mail to correct some grammatical errors.
Subject: Member Concerns
Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 14:24:26 -0400
From: "Machina, Alex (GEIS)"
To: UUCF-Chat
Member Concerns: Three complaints were received regarding an announcement made at the second service on Sunday, April 25, advertising and endorsing a credit card. Jan Taddeo volunteered to research the policy and contact the person who made the announcement.
Minutes from 4-27-99 Board Meeting
==============
Good grief! Yes, what we have here is a liberal, religious community! You know, I am really beginning to lose hope that there are any redeeming social values left at UUCF. What is the point of this "community"?
I did not view it as "advertising and endorsing a credit card". I viewed it as a human being expressing her natural self, her deeply held beliefs. Are we going to prohibit that now, via a "policy" because someone viewed it as "advertising"?
This reminds me that I did not like then, nor do I like now, the ministerially imposed fiat changing the name of "Joys and Concerns" to "Joys and Sorrows".
But more importantly, that the Board would even consider it necessary "to research the policy and contact the person who made the announcement" is ludicrous. And tell the person what? To cease and desist being herself and expressing who she is? To cease expressing her belief and endorsement of a socially responsible cause?
And while I'm at it, I noticed that announcements were prohibited at yesterday's service, but the minister made a point of inviting someone from the endowment committee to spend several minutes extolling the virtues of contributing to the endowment fund, at precisely the point in the service where the announcements would have occurred. I can imagine that that particular speech sounded like advertising and endorsing a credit card to some.
I am suggesting that the board has nothing to research, that no policy regarding this issue needs to exist, and that no "contact [of] the person who made the announcement" is necessary (except perhaps to offer an invitation to ignore this latest flapdoodle, and to reaffirm the person's dignity and right to self-expression). I am therefore requesting that the board simply acknowledge the receipt of the complaints and take no further action.
Subject: Member Concerns
Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 20:34:55 -0400
From: "Stephen C. Clapp"
To: "Machina, Alex (GEIS)"
CC: Patricia Harding-Clark
UUCF-chat
Dittos, Alex, on your comment about Joys and Sorrows. Let's not beat around the bush. I assume the offending party was Patricia Harding-Clark, who is an advocate for Working Assets investment fund and credit card. (If I'm wrong, Patricia will appreciate the free publicity.) Three member complaints? What is this, the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Fussbudgets?
Not long ago I heard a presentation on social justice advocacy at a meeting of the local chapter of Bread for the World, the (mostly) Christian anti-hunger organization. The speaker, a member of a mainline Protestant church in Dale City, suggested getting the message out during worship services by using Joys and Concerns. "Lucky you," I thought to myself. "You still have Joys and Concerns. Our supposedly liberal UU congregation has done away with it." When I compare what goes on at UUCF with the atmosphere at other churches, I shake my head in amazement.
Subject: RE: Member Concerns
Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 22:45:28 -0400
From: "Edward Cacciapaglia"
To: "'Stephen C. Clapp'"
"'Machina, Alex (GEIS)'"
CC: "'Patricia Harding-Clark'"
"'UUCF-chat'"
Sbteve, Alex, Patricia, et al,
Thank you for having the courage to continue to express yourselves and give voice to these concerns.
Recently I was in Philadelphia, where I stopped in to visit the old Quaker Church near Freedom Hall. I talked with a woman who was explaining to a group of students that the Quakers believe that it is far more important to live and act on your beliefs than to go sit in church on Sunday. The Quakers along with the Unitarians and others have a rich history of being actively involved in the abolitionist movement, the women's rights movement and many other important human rights issues.
In this spirit, I read with dismay the continuing attempts of 3 or 4 members to try to quiet some members of the congregation at the former Fairfax Unitarian Church. When "seeking the holy" is given far greater weight then "building community" something is terribly wrong. Yes, sometimes I used to be impatient with the ramblings of some during Joys and Concerns. But I knew these people were expressing themselves, BECAUSE Joys and Concerns WAS a SAFE PLACE to speak; THAT IN ITSELF WAS SACRED.
I am very disturbed when an attitude is expressed that what congregants have to say in spontaneous Joys and Concerns is unimportant. This is one of the reasons I gave up church for Lent.
Ed Cacciapaglia
Subject: Re: Member Concerns
Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 23:59:32 -0400
From: Nancy Byrd
To: uucf-chat
My fellow UUCFrs, I'd like to second what Alex has said. While I could have predicted the response to Patricia's statements, I do not believe the fault lies with her behavior. Rather it lies with those who wish to CENSOR every comment, if they believe it to be contrary to their notions of propriety. Without freedom of speech we do not have a free church. Let's honor freedom of speech at UUCF, and have a little respect for the worth and dignity of our fellow members even if we don't always agree with them or the way they do things. It's the price we pay to have an open, welsoming congregation, where people can feel comfortable being themselves. This is precious; let's not throw it away. - Nancy Byrd
[Alex Machina, 10 May 1999 was quoted in full here.]
Subject: Re: Member Concerns
Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 09:32:12 -0400
From: [Mark Waser]
To: Nancy Byrd
CC: uucf-chat
>> Without freedom of speech we do not have a free
church. Let's
>> honor freedom of speech at UUCF, and have a
little respect for the worth
>> and dignity of our fellow members even if we
don't always agree with them
>> or the way they do things. It's the price we
pay to have an open,
>> welsoming congregation,
Nancy's reply was pro-UUCF enough to make it worth my joining this thread. It also helps by raising the issue of the trade-offs of freedom of speech. There is a price that goes with freedom of speech and there is a responsibility to prudently use that freedom.
All of us have very limited time in our lives. Time that we spend on one thing can not be spent on another. If we spend five minutes listening to credit card announcements and/or charity fund-raising during Joys and Sorrows, we do not have those five minutes for church activity announcements or real PERSONAL Joys and Sorrows. I wouldn't mind an announcement about a credit card that was run by a NON-PROFIT if it was done in two sentences ("There's a credit card being run by the non-profit X to support Y. Please see me for details.") on a Sunday where there were not a lot of announcements. I don't appreciate it when it runs long or when the good cause is being used as a front to support someone's bottom line.
In addition, what we say and how we say it has a very real effect on people. I find that using Joys and Sorrows for non-personal items kills the sacredness of that time for me. Steve's example of "getting the message out" for Bread for the World during Joys and Concerns truly abuses people.
I believe that it shows a lack of respect and dignity for others to misuse their time for your agenda - not matter how "good" that agenda is. It is a truly selfish act. The fact that it is "in the name of supporting a good cause" does not change that. This is a case of the ends not justifying the means and believing that your way is the only way.
Also, in all honesty, I am more and more appalled by the selfishness of many of the posts on this forum. Too many of them seem to say, if you don't let me act in any way I please then you are violating the principles of freedom of speech and respect and dignity. It's my way or you're a bad person. Or it's just like children who don't realize that rights and privileges can only survive when responsibilities are met.
Let's try to grow a responsible caring community where freedom of speech exists but is used judiciously - - not insist on the rights of individuals to inflict themselves upon others at a whim.
Subject: Listening from the heart
Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 09:35:06 -0400
From: Laura
Organization: [...]
To: uucf-chat
Hi fellow UUCFers,
I don't often find myself compelled to say anything here, but there does seem to be a free speech issue at work here. What is of joy or sorrow or concern to me may not be to you -- and so it goes. If I choose to stand in front of my church community and speak of what concerns me or excites me so that I can share it, then I hope that you would listen. Our church NEEDS Joys and Concerns or Sorrows or whatever anyone chooses to call it. Until there are enough avenues of personal expression and heart level listening within our community there will always be this need.
I miss the Healing Circle that we had a couple years ago. Now THAT was an ideal place for voicing and being heard. Though the time was most inconvenient for me, when I did manage to get there I felt it was a place to speak the unspeakable and be heard. I was loved there and I really needed it at that time in my life. I asked one of the originators if that could be started again and I was even willing to do it, but was told it wasn't going to be done anymore. That's a real problem.
I'm not very attached to Joys and Concerns. I'd rather have a place/space/group where such things can be shared and responded to in a smaller and more intimate way. Nonetheless, if there is control coming from the administrators or trustees of the church then this open forum during the service should be preserved as is. Inappropriate control at any level stinks and should be challenged.
In community,
Laura Claxton
Subject: Re: Member Concerns
Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 17:35:39 -0400
From: "Robert J. Hatfield"
To: "UUCF- Chat"
An observation:
This latest contretemps has indications of becoming another feeding frenzy
of emails from some who are inclined to see nefarious plots by a cabal of
unnamed "leaders" to further alter an earlier, purer remembered FUC/UUCF -
and some who might be called true believers in the current congregational
lifestyle trying to set expectations on a more balanced course (whew!!).
I offer for your consideration the following:
Our Worship Service structure now includes (usually) an opening Announcement
period for church activities, and a midway Joys & Concerns period for BRIEF
STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS IN ONE'S PERSONAL LIFE. I accept the
premise that the hour we share each Sunday morning is a communal act of
intentional worship space (or "worth-ship" as it is sometimes defined).
Consistent with that premise, I find that the above parameter for Joys &
Concerns is entirely appropriate.
A Recommendation:
I propose that the Announcement Period be relocated to just after the
Benediction, and be placed in the Order of Service at that point - with an
invitation for people to stay seated while these Announcements are given (we
should recognize that many will stay out of courtesy and interest but, since
it will occur outside the confines of a formal series of "Worship-related"
elements, staying will be an act of free will and some will inevitably start
to ease out toward the Commons or Exit). I further propose that this
Announcement Period be broadened in scope such that "promotion of good
causes" may also be made, subject to a reasonable time limit out of
consideration to the others waiting to make announcements and the tolerance
of those listening. For those who wish to make a more extensive
announcement, our "guidelines" should ask that the Announcement Period
statement be long enough to clearly identify the topic, but then conclude
with an invitation for those interested to continue in a smaller
"discussion-mode" in the Commons or wherever. Those with such long
announcements would then avoid recriminations from others who might feel
that their willingness to listen "in community" is being exploited. This
placement would have the added virtue of coming just before the "social
time" in the Commons, which is where many announcements lead people for
getting further info or buying tickets, etc. That desired action is more
likely to occur when the invitation is in close proximity to the
opportunity.
Within this suggested restructuring, the "Working Assets" promotion (a program I find conceptually attractive from a Social Justice perspective) made by Patricia ( a person whose zeal and dedication to causes I find admirable), would find a congenial and appropriate time-space after the formal Worship period, without causing any actual or perceived intrusion on the legitimate needs of others for a spiritual experience that leans more to the contemplative than the hortatory.
In our faith,
Bob Hatfield
Subject: RE: Member Concerns
Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 20:02:46 -0400
From: "Machina, Alex (GEIS)"
To: UUCF- Chat
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert J. Hatfield
>
> I offer for your consideration the following:
>
> Our Worship Service structure now includes (usually) an opening
> Announcement period for church activities, and a midway Joys & Concerns
> period for BRIEF STATEMENTS OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS IN ONE'S PERSONAL LIFE.
> I accept the premise that the hour we share each Sunday morning is a
> communal act of intentional worship space (or "worth-ship" as it is
> sometimes defined). Consistent with that premise, I find that the above
> parameter for Joys & Concerns is entirely appropriate.
>
====
Bob,
I think you misinterpreted the point of my original email. This is not about finding some formula for the sharing of "brief statements of significant events in one's personal life".
This is about determining how one goes about deciding just what is significant to a given individual. This is about finding the space to listen to someone's joys and sorrows. I submit that only the individual can decide.
Therefore, I am arguing that we must have enough trust in the individual, enough tolerance for each individual, that no policy needs to be established. Will there be abuses? Well, I suppose that depends on your level of tolerance.
My primary point is that I do not want a community in which anyone is stifled or made to feel that they cannot "intrude" on the "worship" hour. I am willing to tolerate a lot of ambiguity for the sake of letting each individual feel safe and to express themselves as they really are.
Other writers have said it better than I, and I want to quote them:
Ed Cacciapaglia:
Yes, sometimes I used to be impatient with the ramblings of some during Joys and Concerns. But I knew these people were expressing themselves, BECAUSE Joys and Concerns WAS a SAFE PLACE to speak; THAT IN ITSELF WAS SACRED.
Nancy Byrd:
I do not believe the fault lies with her behavior. Rather it lies with those who wish to CENSOR every comment, if they believe it to be contrary to their notions of propriety. Without freedom of speech we do not have a free church. Let's honor freedom of speech at UUCF, and have a little respect for the worth and dignity of our fellow members even if we don't always agree with them or the way they do things. It's the price we pay to have an open, welsoming congregation, where people can feel comfortable being themselves. This is precious.
Laura Claxton:
If I choose to stand in front of my church community and speak of what concerns me or excites me so that I can share it, then I hope that you would listen. Our church NEEDS Joys and Concerns or Sorrows or whatever anyone chooses to call it. Until there are enough avenues of personal expression and heart level listening within our community there will always be this need.
====
What concerns me is not that an individual chose to express herself. What concerns me is that there appears to be precious little tolerance to let people feel safe and be themselves, in favor of some perfectly scripted experience. While I intellectually understand those who lodged the complaints, I am arguing that the community's response (via The Board) needs to be one which affirms the individual as opposed to one which confronts the individual with some communal policy.
What I find most sacred about Joys and Sorrows is that anyone at all is willing to stand up and share. What I find most profane is that anyone should think that someone's joys or sorrows must fit within some committee's guidelines.
As an aside, a note to The Board: While in retrospect, it might seem that it would have been preferable not to mention in The Minutes the paragraph about Member Concerns before reaching some consensus, that is really not the issue. The Board did the right thing in publicizing the concerns of the original complainants; their concerns need to be listened to as well. What is important, I think, is that the community rally soundly in favor of making The Sanctuary into precisely what that word implies.
Subject: one person's nonsense is....
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 17:29:36 EDT
From: [anonymous-1]br>
To: [Mark Waser]
CC: uucf-chat
Mark,
I must respectfully disagree with you. For example, I might feel moved to announce during Joys & Sorrows that my mother has thus far survived breast cancer and I'm grateful the Race for the Cure to raise money for breast cancer research is coming up. Someone else might think I'm just touting my latest cause or commercializing the service. But I'm being sincere and genuine that this is a Joy (and Sorrow) for me. I don't think anyone has the right to evaluate another's Joy or Sorrow. I think as a community we need to let those who are moved to speak do so. If people don't like Joys and Sorrow, they can meditate, pray, or count the chairs in the row ahead of them. I remember one service a woman talked about the birds in her yard. Some around me were really offended she would "waste" their time with that during J&S. I wanted to meet her to know someone who remains awed by the beauty of nature.
regards,
[anonymous-1]
Subject: Clarification
Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 18:40:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: (The Taddeo Family)
To: uucf-chat
As Secretary of the Board, I would like to clarify the item in the Board minutes which was the catalyst for so much discussion regarding Joys and Sorrows.
The Board received three complaints about an announcement given during the Announcement time at the beginning of the service being used to solicit to the congregation. The Board decided to check our policies and find out if there is any existing policy about solicitations at church. I have not yet researched this. After I do this research, I will present it to the Board, and we will discuss it, as appropriate, with the people involved.
The Board did not make any judgments, decisions, or censorships of the Joys and Sorrows period of our worship service. The minutes seem to have been interpreted diferently then they were intended. Anyone attending that Board meeting could confirm this information.
Jan Taddeo
The moment we cease to hold each other, the moment we break faith with one another, the sea engulfs us and the light goes out. -James Baldwin
Subject: Re: Clarification (Jan)
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 00:32:08 -0400
From: Nancy Byrd
To: uucf-chat
Jan, Thanks for posting the information. You guys represent us, and I have had the strong feeling that you are working hard for us. Whether any consensus can be drawn from the flurry of emails is not clear. While I cannot speak for Patricia, I doubt that she intended to do anything more serious than passing along what she thought was a good idea.
We hold our time to be important, and some question whether Patricia's statements crossed the line between personal and commercial speech. Although Mark Waser is especially sensitive on this point, the point is not frivolous. Perhaps we need an ongoing conversation about a civil liberty/right not be harassed by commercial entities. As a society, we have blurred the lines between the rights of commercial speakers versus social/political speakers.
Mark Hatfield suggested that we might ameliorate perceived worship disruptions by considering the structure and order of the service. This is worth considering further. A service is many things, including a work of art. How we arrange it can have an effect on the artistic whole, while allowing for the variability that a free church, by definition, must have.
A number of us hold free speech very precious, perhaps sacred. We would rather put up with an occasional impropriety than abridge it. All in all, I'd say there was a fruitful exchange of ideas.
I do not think we need any more groundrules, and we have too much censure and not enough respect for the inherent worth and dignity of all our members.
Thankyou for your efforts on our behalf - Nancy