[This appears to be in response to: "Noted with sorrow", by Judy Gallimore, 11 Feb 1999]
Subject: The Tone of a Church
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 18:08:51 +0000
From: Alisa Joaquin
To: uucf-chat
Judy Gallamore is correct. One person can change the Chemistry, Emotions, and Tone of a Church and usually that is the MINISTER. Think about who the Ministers have been in the past. Rudy Nemser (thought I have not had the pleasure of meeting), Ralph Stuttsman, Joe Bartlette, to name just three. Though Joe Bartlette was only there for a short time, I am sure he had left his mark on the place as well. Think about how the ATMOSPHERE of the church felt. Is the church vibrant, filled with people wanting to volunteer and help, or is the church stagnating and the energy waning? What is the spirit of the church like, is it a place of loving community, or is it filled with pain and sorrow? Has the spirit died? Where is that spark, that one person that helps the church reach it's vision? Who is the one person that is supposed to spark that vision? Is it the Minister? Do we still see the minister within the traditional role that all other denominations do? It would seem that some of us do.
So, what is the role of a Minister? It is my understanding that the Minister is supposed to be the Spiritual Leader, the Guide, the Teacher, the FATHER (or Mother) if you will pardon my use of traditional church language. When the Father inspires his children, they want to do what is right, good, and keep harmony within that family. When the FATHER scolds his disobedient children, it can be painful and even shaming. Some learn, some do not. A Good father tries to help his children see the love and reasons for his actions, but a father should never insult his children or making them feel less than what they are, that they have been dismissed, and their feelings do not matter.
I am reminded of the old kid's saying: "Sticks and stone may break my bones but words will never hurt me."
In this instance, WORDS DO HURT. They hurt the spirit. They leave wounds far deeper than a simple bruise or cut that a stick or stone would leave. Bones can mend, a wounding of the spirit takes longer to heal, if it ever does.
>Like Sue Davis, I fervently hope that this bickering will end and that
>people harboring deep seated resentments against
Jim Nelson should do the
>honorable thing and get out of our lives!
I do not think these words were truly meant to say that those that harbor resentments should leave, if they do, then I am truly saddened by the loss of the diverse opinions that UUCF is suppose to uphold through it's mssion and covenant statement. It is not honorable to tell others to leave because you do not agree with their opinion. It is more honorable to say "let us agree to disagree" and end the bickering. It is more honorable to keep an open mind, to be ALL Inclusive. The Tao speaks of this.
All Inclusive
The single principle can be found everywhere, all the time. Everything works according to it. Every life unfolds according to it. The single principle does not say yes to this and no to that. Even though Tao is the source of all growth and development, nothing profits Tao. Tao benefits all without return and without prejudice. Neither is the single principle private property. You cannot own it. It does not own you. Its greatest lies in its universality. It is all-inclusive.
The wise leader follows the principle and does not act selfishly. The leader does not accept one person and refuse to work with another. The leader does not own people or control their lives. Leadership is not a matter of winning. The work is done in order to shed the light of awareness on whatever is happening; also selfless service, without prejudice, available to all.
Think on them and ask youself, does the LEADER of the Church follow this principle? And if you find the answer is NO, then you will know why so many have left. Plus, ask yourself do YOU follow this principle? Are you trying to win out of prejudice rather than doing the work to shed the light of awareness? Are you being devisive in your own words rather than offering a hand of understanding? The words you use can not only hurt the one it is directed at, they also hurt you, the one saying the words. They create refugees looking for a new home and we are all lessened by the loss while others are gaining by their taking in of the refugees. Do you wish to see this church splintered further? I do not, though I am one of those refugees. I have found solice elsewhere, though I will still remain for the sake of others. My Teacher now is the Tao, Kung Fu, and the Shaolin philosphy. What they speak about is harmony of the body, mind, and spirit as a whole. What affects one affects the other. We are no longer whole. We must find that wholeness again by acknowledging the anger, embracing it, then letting it go. It serves no purpose but to continue to keep the wounds open. Forgive.
AJ
Subject: Re: The Tone of a Church
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 14:33:08 -0500
From: [Mark Waser]
To: Alisa Joaquin
CC: uucf-chat
This is an opinion and a request of the Board's Communication Committee.
It really bothers me that people who have opted out of our community continue to come back solely for the purpose of continuing to trash Jim and insist on the same old tired points that were rejected by the community last year.
I would like to request that people who are not active in our community either be prevented from posting to our lists or, if that is not possible, removed from them entirely.
I understand that many of these people left our community over hurt feelings but allowing them to continue to revisit them is not helpful to our church community (and probably not particularly helpful for them either).
There are times to let things go in life - - and after you have left the community involved is certainly one of them.
So I ask the Communications Committee, how do we go about getting a consensus to take this action?
P.S. For those who don't know what I am talking about, Marcia Helme who has gone to River Road, Gary Joaquin who has gone to Sterling, Kendra Usack (who sent me a really abusive personal message - feel free to post it if you wish to argue it, Kendra) who has gone to UUCL, and Alisa Joaquin who has gone to Sterling are two-thirds of the individuals who have sent anti-Jim messages. TWO-THIRDS! It is ridiculous to let them continue to poison the spirit of the church with their venomous hatred. Let's end this.
Subject: Re: The Tone of a Church
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 14:26:59 +0000
From: Alisa Joaquin
To: [Mark Waser]
CC: uucf-chat
Mark,
I read your post regarding your request to the communications committe. Though I agree in part that revisiting the hurt feelings is not helpful to both those within and without the community, it is not your place to say who is or is not a part of that commmunity. It is the choice of the individual. If someone leaves and drops their membership, then it is also up to them whether they will remain on email. Some, like Anna Shullaw, who have moved, like to be able to keep in touch with friends and what is happening. Those like myself, that do not attend worship, may not have left entirely. There are many who attend events at the church during the week or are involved with other activities but do not come on Sundays for their own reasons.
>>>>>
>From Mark Waser
>P.S. For those who don't know what I am talking about, Marcia Helme who
has gone to River
>Road, Gary Joaquin who has gone to Sterling, Kendra
Usack (who sent me a really abusive
>personal message - feel free to
post it if you wish to argue it, Kendra) who has gone to UUCL,
>and
Alisa Joaquin who has gone to Sterling are two-thirds of the individuals
who have sent
>anti-Jim messages. TWO-THIRDS! It is ridiculous to let
them continue to poison the spirit
>of the church with their venomous
hatred. Let's end this.
>>>>>
The above paragraph was VERY HURTFUL and inflammatory. Four members are spoken here as to suggest that our words were spoken out of hatred while only two were not. I am appalled that you would think my last message was done out of hatred. I do it out of CARING and LOVE for a church community that I have been a member for more than 10 years. How have I poisoned the spirit of this church when I have been doing my best to NOT be poisonous with my words? I am also downright outraged that you would consider my words as poisonous. How could being ALL-INCLUSIVE be considered poisonous? I feel as if I have been slapped in the face. Though I could say something callous, it would only continue to fuel that hatred and would not be right. I have no hatred toward you or anyone at UUCF. I only wish for understanding and an end to the bickering between members. And yet, if you (or anyone) continues to slap my cheek (figuratively), and consider me filled with hatred, I humbly and gladly give you the other.
The Tao speaks of taking revenge as liken to a vessel with a hole in it, it holds only the promise of emptyness.
I am saddened that you would think I might do something out of revenge and hatred. I have not sought revenge. I have only sought enlightenment and understanding. I have done my best to not attack the Minister but to try to understand just what a Minister may or should be by asking thought provoking questions. If I have said anything out of line regarding that, it should be the Minister's place to tell me.
For me, I believed a Minister to be like a father, someone whom I should be able to come to for comfort and advise. My father died seven years ago. For me, the church became my "Father." The Minister was a representive of that image And when I lost my faith when I saw the church tearing itself apart, it's members at each other's throats, it tore me in two. I grieved, heavily. It was a time of darkness for me. No one, not even the Minister could help me. I had to find solice elsewhere until I could find peace, harmony, and wholeness in my soul so that if and when I returned, I could see things in another light, so I did not leave entirely. Though I do not participate in worship, I participate with activities just the same. I am an active member of the adult retreat committee and I attend the mindfullness center once a week. I find my worship elsewhere, though that does not mean that I cannot participate in other ways. It is my choice. Still, others continue to fuel the fans of hatred by their very words. I have been trying to get beyond it, but with words that you used in your PS, it makes it more difficult and yet, I must yield to my anger and say NO! I will not respond in kind.
I am, however, disappointed that we cannot come together with compassion and try to understand how the other feels. Without compassion, we soon loose that connectedness to others and we all lose. Connection to others is not limited to just within a closed community. There are communities where, when one leaves, they are precluded from further communication with the community - they're called cults! It is my understanding that UU's are supposed to be an open and free religious community where ideas, opinions, and honest feelings can be shared without recrimination, even on a chat list. There are many who are still hurting. They need our compassion more than our hatred in response.
Lao Tzu says, "The first practice is the practice of undiscriminating virtue: take care of those that are deserving; also and EQUALLY take care of those who are not."
Even our brothers and sisters beyond the Temple walls, whether they are a part of the community or not must be treated as if they are. If these words are considered to be poisonous, then I drink from that well humbly and deeply.
Alisa
When you perceive that an act done to another is done to yourself, you have understood the great truth -- Hua Hu Ching-The Unknown Teachings of Lao Tzu
Subject: Re: The Tone of a Church
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 11:06:08 -0500
From: "Kit Christopher J. Lueder"
To: uucf-chat
CC: Alisa Joaquin, Steve Clapp
For the record, I agree with Steve Clapp and others that Jim's reference to capturing the community ("The View from the Mountain," Feb. 7, 1999) was an unfortunate choice of words that seems to have reopened the wounds again. I wish he had chosen other words. But for the tenth time, I am saddened that people like Steve will voice their complaints in public rather than going directly to the person with whom they have a grievance and attempt to resolve it in private. I could understand if you tried and failed in private and still felt so concerned that you needed to bring it out in public; but that isn't how you did it.
Alisa Joaquin wrote:
> Is the church vibrant, filled
> with people wanting to volunteer and help, or is the church stagnating
> and the energy waning? What is the spirit of the church like, is it a
> place of loving community...?
Yes. There is plenty of volunteerism. It is a healthy congregation with tons of stuff to do. I have had no trouble getting volunteers for the activites I organize. We have teachers for a huge children's RE program and a wonderful adult ed program. We have Lay Ministers and support staff under them--that is new in just the last few years, not something Ralph had benefit of.
>Where is that spark, that one person that helps the
> church reach it's vision? Who is the one person that is supposed to
> spark that vision? Is it the Minister?
Why do you lump all the responsibility on the Minister, and not on the board, the lay ministers, the president, the congregation? There is no one person. But I think Jim has acted beautifully (usually).
>Someone else wrote:
> >Like Sue Davis, I fervently hope that this bickering will end and that
> >people harboring deep seated resentments against Jim Nelson should do
the
> >honorable thing and get out of our lives!
I too am not happy with this statement. It is addressed at members and former members who have given significant time and treasure to this church congregation, and to tell them to walk away from that is not fair. To ask them to behave reasonably and decently is fair.
>Back to Alisa:
> It is not honorable to tell others
> to leave because you do not agree with their opinion. It is more
> honorable to say "let us agree to disagree" and end the bickering. It
> is more honorable to keep an open mind, to be ALL Inclusive. The Tao
> speaks of this.
I agree.
> Think on them and ask youself, does the LEADER of the Church follow this
> principle?
Yes, usually. But he is human like all of us.
> It serves no purpose but to continue to keep the wounds open. Forgive.
This is a nice sentiment, but I don't see you doing that. But I don't think forgiveness is the desirable action. I think Jim's statement was acknowledging the conflict and showing how it was good for the congregation. Why don't you re-read his statement, with the one unfortunately-worded clause left out:
"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 together we can find purpose."
I think he is going beyond forgiveness and reached acceptance. Forgiveness implies feeling that someone did something wrong, which is not what he seems to be saying there.
Kit.
God offers to every mind its choice between truth and repose
-Emerson, Essays: Intellect
Subject: Re: The Tone of a Church
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 20:31:41 -0500
From: "Stephen C. Clapp"
To: "Kit Christopher J. Lueder"
CC: UUCF-chat
Kit,
Thanks for your even-tempered comments. It was nice to see a return to civility on the list-serve.
I want to address one of your points, because I have been hearing it ever since I returned to the church from Belgium over three years ago: "I am saddened that people like Steve will voice their complaints in public rather than going directly to the person with whom they have a grievance and attempt to resolve it in private."
In general, I agree. Private grievances should be settled privately. When I was disappointed with one of Jim's actions soon after my return, I sent him a personal letter, and he replied with a note of his own.
However, like politicians and celebrities, ministers are public figures whose words carry weight. The pulpit is a powerful instrument. As Alisa says, a minister sets the tone for a religious community.
Public wrongs call for public remedies. When Jim had harsh words for the Worship Committee two years ago, several committee members openly challenged him to explain his conduct. I thought what they did was entirely appropriate, although Jim at first did not.
Last May I twice sent Jim an e-mail expressing in the strongest terms my displeasure with his Mother's Day sermon. Receiving no response, I went public with my views. I was criticized for speaking my mind during "Joys and Sorrows," yet there is no other forum for sermon feedback except this list-serve. Jim has isolated himself from public challenge.
I was not present for Jim's Feb. 7 sermon, but I heard about it from several members that same day. Reading the sermon, I, too, was offended by his suggestion that some of us had tried to "capture this community." I am still puzzled by his motives. Surely a Ph.D in literature chooses his words with care. How could he not anticipate that his remarks would cause offense? Was he trying to drive even more of us out of the congregation? I'd like an explanation, and I'm sure others would too.
Hurt and misunderstanding fester when open dialogue is suppressed. In my opinion, what's wrong at UUCF is not that too many people speak out, but that too many voices stay silent.
Steve
Subject: Re:The Tone of the Church
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 11:16:18 -0500
From: Birnbaum
To: UUCF-chat
This is in reply to Mark Wasser's invitation to discuss removal of "people who no longer attend UUCF from our chat line."
I would not like to remove anyone from our list. I know all of the persons mentioned fairly well. I am fond of them all. Even though I disagree with many of their opinions, I have interacted with them frequently over the years and know that many of their views I do agree with. I value their input. It helps me to clarify just what I do believe and what I perceive to be truth.
If a message to the chat line is offensive to me, or boring to me, or not applicable to my interests in the congregation, I have no trouble clicking on the delete button.
I appreciate it when individuals try to express their concerns and differences without name calling and blaming. I also know that communication is an extremely fragile and difficult thing. How can it be possible to express in language the feelings in our heart? Sometimes our grasp of vocabulary limits us. Often each of us has a different definition of words we all use. The recent use of the word "niggardly" for instance. Some people found the word to be racist. I thought, "Wow, what an educated young man to have the word in his every day vocabulary."
It would be difficult to limit this chat line to only Friends and Members of UUCF. Who would want to keep checking credentials? Wouldn't it be neat to have philosophical discussions with other UU's? What if non-UU's liked what they read and became members? -- Sure is a more modern tact than going door to door with pamphlets.
I vote to continue to keep this an open forum.
Kathy Birnbaum
Subject: Re: The Tone of the Church
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 23:52:27 EST
From: [Karen Solon]
To: [Kathy Birnbaum, UUCF Chat]
In a message dated 99-02-17 11:45:22 EST, birnbaum@erols.com writes:
<<
This is in reply to Mark Wasser's invitation to discuss removal of
"people who no longer attend UUCF from our chat line."
I would not like to remove anyone from our list. I know all of the persons mentioned fairly well. I am fond of them all. ....
... I vote to continue to keep this an open forum.
Kathy Birnbaum
>>
Ditto. Thank you, Kathy.
Karen Solon (and Manny, who is hovering over my shoulder!)