Noted with Sorrow, 9-15 Feb 1999

Subject: Noted with Sorrow
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 22:30:50 -0500
From: "Stephen C. Clapp"
To: UUCF-chat

"Last year was a wilderness experience for this congregation. It was not fun; there was conflict and there was tension, and it called into question who we are and who we are for...We have learned that we can listen even to those voices we may not like; we have learned that a small group cannot capture this community; we have learned that together we can find purpose."

-- Jim Nelson, "The View from the Mountain," Feb. 7, 1999

For the record, those of us who criticized the leadership last year never sought to "capture this community." We tried to hold the congregation to its highest ideals. We had mixed success. What's sad is that Jim feels compelled to put down his critics even after most of us have left the scene.

Posters' Note:
"JN" refers to Rev. Jim Nelson"
"SC" refers to Stephen C. Clapp

Subject: Re: Noted with Sorrow
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:44:11 -0500
From: [Mark Waser]
To: "Stephen C. Clapp"
CC: UUCF-chat

JN >> we have learned that a small group cannot capture this community

SC >> For the record, those of us who criticized the leadership last year
SC >> never sought to "capture this community."

While you may not have sought to "capture the community", that phrase certainly DOES resonate with the way I felt when the same issues were dealt with over and over again without regard to the feelings and the time of the majority simply because the minority couldn't get their way.

SC >> What's sad is that Jim feels compelled to put down his critics
SC >> even after most of us have left the scene.

What's sad is that you continue to assume the worst and insist in seeing insults and put-downs where they aren't intended in order to "continue the battle." Your e-mail response is, to me, an attempt to capture the community by forcing your derogatory views upon me and implicitly demanding some action of me. I understand that you don't like Jim. That's fine. However, your treatment of both him and our entire community is abusive when you insist on taking offense where none is intended and constantly asserting the "rightness" (righteousness?) of your actions last year.

I would say that Jim's words are a dead-on reflection of what happened. A small, very active, very vocal group with an agenda brought their case to the community. The community listened and declined to agree. What's the problem?

Subject: Re: Re: Noted with Sorrow
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 23:43:10 EST
From: [Marcia Helme]
To: [Nan Johnson and numerous others]

Are you sure Jim's attitudes derive from a struggle within the UUA? Or is it just that Jim wants us to believe that the UUA is coming closer to his way of thinking? My experience with other UU groups leads me to conclude that Jim is way out in right field. It is he who is out of sinc with the UUA, not his critics.

Marcia Helme

Subject: Re: Re: Noted with Sorrow
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 23:54:08 EST
From: [Marcia Helme]
To: [Mark Waser and numerous others]

Mark,

I couldn't disagree with you more.

"Getting my way" was not the issue for me at all. Acting in concert with the UU principles was my issue. These include respect for the inherent worth and dignity of every person. I think Jim's statement, "a small group cannot capture our community," is a vague innuendo. I'd like to know who he and you think that small group is. I'd also like some specifi examples of what you and he mean by "capture our community."

I hope his "capture our community" doesn't mean something like: "criticize the minister's behavior" "raise the consciousness of the congregation on certain issues" "express views contrary to the views of the majority" "express disappointment at uucf being so out of sinc with most of the UU movement."

Marcia Helme

Subject: Noted with sorrow
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 21:42:49 -0500
From: "Judy Gallimore"
To: "uucf-chat"

I'm not going to say much but I feel I have to stand up and be counted.

My reaction to Jim's sermon is - what a devisive thing to say! And it worked. We are supposed to be entering a period of congregational conversations and our attention is distracted, our mood is shifted, wounds reopened by a bomb shell of a comment.

Mark, you are looking at the wrong person as being the trouble maker. It's not Steve Clapp, or me, or any other mere member of the congregation that has the power to control the chemistry of emotions of this congregation.

Judy Gallimore

Subject: Re: Noted with Sorrow
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 08:03:31 -0500
From: [Nan Johnson]
To: [Marcia Helme]
CC: [numerous others]

Hi Marcia,

While I will not deny that most of Rev. Nelson's difficulties arise from his own internal struggles, he is definitely part of a camp within the professional ministry that is at odds with our vision of the UU movement. Although his "I've found God and I'll pray for you" stance is definitely his own baggage, he will be attending a meeting of the "ministers to larger congregations" somewhere in the US next month. That group of, mostly male, senior ministers also dominates the UUMinisters Association (UUMA)--which is an independent organization that operates a little like a minister's labor union and is __not__subordinate to the UUA. Still, UU ministers are expected to seek and obtain "fellowship" with the UUMA during three days of interviews and psychological assessment that used to take place in Boston every spring. In fact, the UUMA pushed a motion at one of the recent GA's that would have barred non-UUMA-fellowshipped ministers from being ordained (? not sure if it was ordination or some other process to recognize UU ministers) unless they were fellowshipped with the UUMA. That would have superseded the rights that UU congregations now have to call and ordain anybody they want to. Taking us another step away from congregational leadership to ministerial leadership and management. I don't believe the measure passed at that time, but I have not been following UUA business as closely as I used to.

The UUMA has been seeking control through many other avenues within the UUA, including: the management of the ministerial selection process--dictating which candidates' names will be provided to churches seeking, as they have dubbed it, "leadership;" dictating the financial parameters of recruiting and hiring ministers in UU churches; refusing, until recently, to "fellowship" ministers of religious education who did not have a "pure" divinity/theology degree. The former JPD consultant, Sid Peterman, and other ministers at the larger churches--Cedar Lane, River Road and Arlington, for example--all subscribed to the UUMA's position that "professional" ministry was more important than congregational leadership, that fellowships are "problematic." Evidence of this is in the JPD's push to provide professional leadership to new congregations with monetary grants, in order to establish ministerial dominance before congregational leadership can meld. Lay persons attending JPD leadership conferences are instructed to look to the minister for direction and support his initiatives. The artifacts of "congregational polity" and congregational leadership is anathema to the leadership of the UUMA.

I will acknowledge that my personal knowledge of ministers and churches is outdated at this point. I have seen no evidence, however, that the UUMA has changed course. I will acknowledge that I was inaccurate when I referred only to the UUA, it is the UUMA leadership within the UUA that continues to campaign for the consolidation of power and control under their "self-sanctioned" professional leadership. In defining my terms more succinctly, I was inaccurate in describing the problems at UUCF as merely an example of individual/group tension; more precisely, it is the tension between models of professional and lay leadership that are at the heart of the matter. I do not believe that UUCF's primary purpose should be to make Reverend Nelson's dreams come true. He should be asking where the congregation wants to go, not dictating the direction and condemning non-conformists like us.

      Hoping you find peace in other places,
           Nan

[Marcia Helme] wrote:
[Marcia Helme to Nan Johnson, 10 Feb 1999 is quoted in full here.]

Mark Waser to Marcia Helme, 11 Feb 1999

Subject: Re: Re: Noted with Sorrow
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 09:43:11 -0500
From: [Mark Waser]
To: Uucf-Chat

Marcia >> I couldn't disagree with you more.

I don't see how you can disagree with me when I'm talking about how the phrase resonated with the way I felt, however . . . . my perception of the events included two very important points. First, several individuals (including Steve Clapp and You) were (and still are) going to insist on interpreting everything that Jim said/says in the worst possible light. Second, that even after having their views heard and fairly considered, those individuals were (and are) not willing to accept the right of the majority to have a differing opinion and will continue to argue and snipe long past the point of what I consider reasonable (and thus waste much of the time, energy, and morale of the community).

Your statements and attempt to grab the moral high ground of "respect for the inherent worth and dignity of every person" are seriously in conflict with my perception of how you treat both Jim and the congregation as a whole. They are also a good "specific example of what I mean by "capture the community"". You are insisting that I accept your viewpoint since you say that it is the viewpoint which is acting in concert with the UU principles. I don't believe so. All I see is a continuing series of mean-spirited attacks that seem to be the exact opposite of "inherent worth and dignity". You insist on subjecting me (and the rest of the congregation) to what I see as nastiness and vicious re-interpretations in hopes of getting me to agree and take some action. This insistence, while possibly reasonable in the beginning, has continued well past the point of being detrimental to the community's well-being. Yet, you persist. Note that I'm not even saying that you're wrong (though I firmly believe so). What I'm saying is that even if you were right, your continued actions aren't likely to make a difference and are clearly doing direct harm to the time, energy, and morale of the congregation. That is what I, personally, mean by "capturing the community" - - wasting our resources and making me take actions that I would not normally make. I don't like spending time writing these e-mails. I feel that I have to. Congratulations, you captured me.

Subject: Re: Noted with Sorrow
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:00:14 -0500
From: Su & Jim Davis
To: [UUCF Chat]

At 09:43 AM 2/11/99 -0500, you wrote:
[Mark Waser to Marcia Helme, 11 Feb 1999 is quoted in full here.]

Dear Mark:

I could not AGREE with you more. I thank you for taking the time and energy to speak for me, also. Although I have not previously entered into this discussion on the Net, I feel that the time has come to stand up for what I, also, believe. It seems to me that ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

Subject: Re: Noted with Sorrow
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 17:43:26 -0500
Fr.om: "Gary L Joaquin"
To: [UUCF Info]

I have been reading the e-mail flurry that began with Steve Clapp's commentary regarding Jim Nelson's sermon excerpt which is reprinted below:

"Last year was a wilderness experience for this congregation. It was not fun; there was conflict and there was tension, and it called into question who we are and who we are for...We have learned that we can listen even to those voices we may not like; we have learned that a small group cannot capture this community; we have learned that together we can find purpose."

-- Jim Nelson, "The View from the Mountain," Feb. 7, 1999

Honestly, my reaction to Jim's words was very similar to Steve's. Insensitive statements like these issued from the pulpit have been one of my primary reasons for withdrawing from UUCF. Statements like these are more difficult to bear when there is no frequently held public forum like sermon discussions where tensions may be diffused by a minister who is an active participant. So about a year ago, after a lot of time and effort, I discontinued my active participation at UUCF. Last December, after six months as a friend, I became a member of UUs of Sterling.

The timing of Jim's sermon is odd for me personally, especially since I have only recently joined Sterling after having giving a lot of thought to questions like: "What could I have done differently at UUCF? Am I setting myself up to be disappointed all over again by joining another congregation? Do I have impossible expectations? Ministers are human with good days and bad. Can I be more forgiving? At what point am I bound by my own personal sense of ethics to speak out, even if what I have to say may be unpopular or controversial? Given the prevailing winds of spirituality in UUism these days, is there still room in this faith for rational humanists? How do we all get along? How can I effectively maintain the personal friendships that I still have at UUCF and put the pain of the last two years in perspective?" If this is the thought process of a person whose design is to "capture a church community", then perhaps I am properly categorized.

Although I hold many of you at UUCF closely as dear friends and still interact with you through the adult retreat committee and in other ways socially, it is time for me to pull the plug on my participation in this list. Please remove [e-mail address edited out] from the list. If there is a procedural way to make this request formally, please let me know and I will do so. Lastly, please do not remove [e-mail address edited out] from the list. Alisa still needs to stay in touch with adult retreat members.

Sincerely, Gary Joaquin

Subject: Re: Noted with Sorrow
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 21:17:36 -0500
From: "Stephen C. Clapp"
To: [Mark Waser]
CC: UUCF-chat

Mark,

For the sake of argument, let's say you're right: a small band of misguided and possibly evil individuals conspires to "capture" a liberal religious community. (Like Marcia, I'm not sure what the word "capture" means in this context, but it sure sounds sinister to me.) In the end, the evil ones are repulsed by the forces of sweetness and light, and the community is saved.

Now let's posit that you're the leader of that liberal religious community. You want to end the conflict and bind up the community's raw and bitter wounds. Why in the world would you gratuitously insult your opponents? Am I missing something here?

A great American president, whose birthday we celebrate tomorrow, once said, "With malice toward none, and charity toward all..." Not a bad idea.

Steve

Subject: RE: Noted with Sorrow; Response to Nan & Marcia
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 22:17:15 -0500
From: "Edward Cacciapaglia"
To: [Marcia Helme & Nan Johnson]
CC: [numerous others]

Marcia and Nan,

Based on my experience with UU groups and ministers, I think that you both have some valid points. The ministers often do cover up for one another. For instance, Rev. Roberta Finkelstein would not comment when we asked her whether she had heard complaints about the minister and the way things are at Fairfax. However, when I talked with Meg Riley of UUA Washington office and Lesbian and Gay concerns, she asked point blank if the issues we had were in reference to Rev. Jim Nelson.

I find Jim out of sync with most of what I have experienced in the UU movement, but I find a lot of what John Buerhens, the current head of UUA, writes and preaches, out of sync, also. (I met John Buerhens several years ago at SUUSI and at the gut level I didn't have good feelings about him and was sad to find out he was going to be the next UUA president. I think Bill Schultz was a much better UUA president.) Buerhens and Jim Nelson seem to be trying to push the UU movement towards a more authoritarian structure, with a more deistic, prayerful bent and an attitude that "the time for humanists is past".

At the congregational level, I hear about a lot of turmoil. Many UU congregations have removed ministers over the last several years, including Arlington, Loudoun County, Roanoke and Raleigh/Durham to name a few. Some minister have moved because the congregation was looking for a minister to do more administration e.g. the CEO minister. (BARF! This was part of the rationale for hiring the minister at Fairfax.) Others have removed authoritarian ministers and have reclaimed our strong lay led tradition, e.g. Loudoun County, which has not hired a new minister.

For now it appears that Fairfax UU is lost in wilderness where the majority of the Congregation either doesn't know our recent UU heritage or is living in a culture of "My minister, right or wrong" akin to the "My country right or wrong" during the Vietnam era. The Congregation we associated with in the late 1980s and early 1990s is long gone.

With sadness at the loss of safe, risk-taking community,

Ed Cacciapaglia

[Nan Johnson to Marcia Helme, 11 Feb 1999 is quoted in full here.]

Subject: Re: Noted with Sorrow
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 09:15:47 -0500
From: [Mark Waser]
To: [UUCF Chat]
CC: "Stephen C. Clapp"

>> For the sake of argument, let's say you're right: a small band of
>> misguided and possibly evil individuals conspires to "capture" a liberal
>> religious community.

See, this is one of the problems that I have with a number of the participants in this discussion . . . . all of a sudden, I find the phrase "possibly evil" listed as part of my "being right." I never said anything of the sort. I never would say, mean, or even believe anything of the sort. This is simply a nasty, disingenuous debate tactic used to further your side of the debate. We don't need a debate, we need a dialogue and a meeting of the minds. Tactics like this do not further that - they are solely designed to win/get your way.

>> (Like Marcia, I'm not sure what the word "capture"means in this context,
>> but it sure sounds sinister to me.)

I thought I explained pretty well what I thought that it meant (or, at least, one good possible meaning). By the way, has this debate "captured" your interest? Do you find this debate "captivating"? That sounds sinister, doesn't it?

>> In the end, the evil ones are repulsed by the forces of sweetness and
>> light, and the community is saved.

Yeah, definitely what I said. NOT! Are we going to attempt to have a dialog and/or a meeting of the minds or are you going to insist on telling me what I mean/what I have inside my own head?

>> Now let's posit that you're the leader of that liberal religious community. . . .
>> Why in the world would you gratuitously insult your opponents?

You wouldn't. And I don't believe that Jim did. You're insisting on taking offense at something that wasn't meant to give offense. And note your own language - the use of the word opponent. You are the one creating a schism. Why in the world won't you give Jim the benefit of the doubt?

>> Am I missing something here?

Yes. Perspective. You're so tightly wrapped up in your point of view and what you expect to see that it is coloring your perceptions. Relax. Let it go. What possible reason would Jim have to gratuitously insult anyone? Are you sure what you're seeing is really there?

>> A great American president, whose birthday we celebrate tomorrow, once
>> said, "With malice toward none, and charity toward all..." Not a bad
>> idea.

I also love the way in which many individuals have taken to the habit of making quotes like these - implying (actually, more than implying) that their perceived opponents are going against them and that they (the writers) are following them scrupulusly. I will directly challenge you on this one, Steve. I see absoultely NO charity in your dealings with Jim Nelson. I am not attributing malice, but I believe that you seriously need to look at your own quote instead of smugly attempting to use it to impugn your "opponent".

Subject: Re: Noted with sorrow
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 09:42:49 -0500
From: [Mark Waser]
To: Judy Gallimore
CC: [UUCF Chat]

>> Mark, you are looking at the wrong person as being the trouble maker.
>> It's not Steve Clapp, or me, or any other mere member of the congregation
>> that has the power to control the chemistry of emotions of this congregation.

One of the saddest commentaries about our times, that I have seen repeated in numerous places, is that we have apparently lost the hope/faith that we can make a difference. I think that this is yet another example of that.

I believe that any mere member CAN radically influence the chemistry of emotions of this congregation if they are willing to put in enough time and effort. More to the point, I believe that a small group of "mere" members can do almost anything if they are willing to put in enough time and effort.

A single comment can not be divisive. Jim can't divide the congregation by saying one small thing. You are the ones giving the comment the power to divide.

Jim is not a nearly omnipotent leader who can crush you with your having very little chance to fight back. The opposite is true. He can't get rid of you. But, if you were to convince a reasonable percentage of the congregation, he would be gone.

But one of the things that a small group has not succeeded in doing is convincing a reasonable percentage of the congregation that they are right. Maybe you should look at that. Maybe you should consider the possibility that it isn't Jim-the-all-powerful blocking you, but the rest of the congregation - more "mere" members.

You, as a mere member, DO have substantial power to influence the chemistry of emotions of the congregation. I do too (or else I wouldn't waste my time writing these silly things). Start taking responsibility for the environment you have taken a major part in creating. It's not them that are doing this (or even him) - it's us.

If you keep screaming "he's divisive", a divide will happen (yeah, yeah, it already has). If you start saying we're healing, the healing will begin. I've heard Jim saying a lot about how we're healing and growing stronger. Even with this little lapse this week, I think he's correct. Why don't you help with the healing instead of picking at the "divide"?

Subject: Re: Re: Re: Noted with Sorrow
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 15:58:37 EST
From: [Marcia Helme]
To: [Mark Waser]
CC: [numerous others]

Mark,

How can you think I read "the worst possible motive" into what Jim Nelson says? I'm never near enough to the uucf buildings to hear what he says.

On February 10, 1999, I responded by email to Nan Johnson's comments on a recent sermon of Jim Nelson's. I did not send that message to the whole chat list. I sent it to a much smaller list that consists of my friends, many of whom are uucf members or former members. If the general uucf chat list received that message, then it's because someone other than I forwarded it to them.

Marcia