Spiritual Practices for the Homebound during a Long, Hard Winter

One of the essentials for a healthy soul is regular contact with nature. When a series of polar vortices assaults a household living with Huntington’s Disease, this calls for a little creativity. It’s a long time since my beloved has been able to traipse around the marshes and woodlands as she did for so many decades, attending to the birds and things that swim, so we had a head start on this problem. 

We read nature books aloud. Geological histories, topographical studies, the kind of stuff that sends teenagers screaming into the parking lots.

By “read nature books” I do not merely refer to the speaking of words. When the authors launch into a list of species — any kind of species: trees, moss,flowers, mammals, fish, whatever — we pull out our Field Guide and look at these little creatures in vivid color photographs. Trees are a particular passion for me, so for those sections (quite abundant in Vermont, and doing something interesting every week of the year), other books might be in order. Pruning guides, for instance, have become quite exciting during this winter of ice and snow, as we compare what happened in previous natural disasters with what we are doing to cope with this one. Wildflowers have their own large, separate book, full of glorious and detailed photos, allowing us to ask whether we have seen any examples in our yard or neighborhood, which we then compare to the science in the field guide and the nature text. Lots of stuff like this is also explored on the local weather broadcast we prefer. That meteorologist gets out in all kinds of circumstances to look at all kinds of details, and sometimes these are part of what we talk about at the close of a particular paragraph.

This is one of our favorite shared experiences. And my beloved, who was a veterinarian technician during her able-bodied years, has laboriously shaped her longest and most passionate vocal offerings to tell me stories about the highlights of her years engaging nature in its own realm.

Sharing Space as Part of a Different Polity Model

Sitting in our beautiful meetinghouse this morning in Burlington, Vermont, sun streaming in, great new minister, strong choir, the whole nine yards… and remembering back to the so-called Golden Era, aka, late Victorian-Edwardian hey day of Unitarianism and Universalism. Tom Schade has us (those of us who care about institutional Unitarian Universalism) imagining a single movement-wide denominational database of members/friends, etc. The key to making this work, in my mind, is the counterintuitive management tool, which is, offering all these people loyalty to more than one board.

That’s how this congregation got and stayed large, in the midst of a small general population. Unity (Young Adults), Women’s Alliance, Sunday School Society, Men’s Group/Laymen’s League — they didn’t just have their own committees, they had their own bylaws, budgets, and bank accounts. They had their own national staff consultants. They published their own worship materials (copies of which are in my library upstairs, this is neither wishful thinking nor undocumented rumor). They kept their own records, published their own calendars, worshiped and ate as part of festive, demanding meeting sessions.

They were not fragmented, but interconnected, mostly by the Executive Committee of the Women’s Alliance (which also handled Membership for the Society until WWII). It is possible to see the Parish Committee as detached and aloof, but it’s also possible to see the oversight of the pulpit and meetinghouse as having their own safe space, where programmatic and generational wars had only visiting privileges. Usually, what is now “the executive committee” was in those days the minister’s family. The wife was not optional, but, in effect, the associate minister who spent most of her time with the Women’s Alliance and maybe the Sunday School Society (although most of the male ministers here in Burlington preferred to maintain Sunday School Society leadership themselves, especially in its ties with The Religious Book Society, aka, the Library).

From a building point of view, something similar happened in many rural towns, where several denominations would go together to build a town church. Each would have their own itinerant minister in on a somewhat regular basis, agreed among themselves. But across interfaith lines, the system failed. The animosity among the co-owners ranged from vague dissatisfaction to outright horror that “those sent by the Devil” were preventing the growth of the saved. So while it might be useful to have separate boards, separate theologies are not productive. 

This, however, is precisely where the separate boards within a single larger Society can promote lifespan ministry and religious education. Everything about each generation is different from those who went before and those who are coming after. And within each generation — which is, in effect, a geographic interest group — there are individuals whose primary personal vision is not about where they are at the moment, but some particular interest, some primary calling or skill. This is why the calling of any new parish minister is usually attended by the loss of established members: those who were down have been brought up, while those in the leadership have been urged to consider stepping back.

Up here in Burlington, having various leadership nodes and gathering cultures meant everyone got used to coming together in one space from time to time, and the rest of the time, feeling strongly supportive of your sibling groups in the same Society. And we’ve very seldom had only one minister (again, counting the ministers’ wives as unpaid, full-time, under-discussed professional-level ministers). 

I’ve been up here ten years now. I arrived as one of the staff members, and now am one of the objects of pastoral concern, both supporting and celebrative. Both my fiancee and I have been able to navigate the changes in our circumstances among the various pools in the Society. But we’ve only got one Board right now, and we’ve only got one parish minister. The DRE is, in effect, a full time minister, and the Administrator and Facilities Manager have major ministerial presences as well. So in a very real sense — and recognizing the incredible class prejudice this religion maintains on who gets ordained and credentialed as an official “minister” — our functional areas of ministry are staffed.

But what about other congregations? And what about the UUA? What about the formerly-affiliated interest communities? There can be too many boards and budgets, but there can also be too few.

Religious TV Day

It’s World Water Awareness Day, a fact brought to my attention by some mega-programming from a new tv channel called Pivot TV. Pivot came to my attention because it carries one of my favorite Canadian series, Little Mosque on the Prairie, in the morning hour I get to sit alone with a good cup of tea. But it’s also doing the kind of documentaries one associates with Free Speech TV and even PBS. Today’s offering was a huge series from a water professor in Norway, with detailed region-by-region history and foreign policy info from all around the world. It’s been on the entire day, with occasional breaks for HGTV (we have house renovations looming this spring), and totally transformational. If the goal of religion is to call us to better selves with wider information, they hit my sweet spot today. And since I was cooking, cleaning, and packing, there is no time lag, no distance gap. I watch a little and wash the dishes more carefully.

So check them out. And since they advertise themselves as “TV for Passionate Millennials,” maybe someone at 24 would want to check into them. They only have 9 likes on Facebook — a good sign that they are not being overrun by pesky boomers like me.

Over on The Lively Tradition, Tom Schade has opined that it’s time for us Unitarian Universalists to completely restructure our organization. He proposes a central database of UUs, lodged not in a building but in the e-cloud that anyone can access from anywhere. This database would embrace all kinds of expression of UU affinity. Not just congregational membership, but camp attendance, participation in the former affiliate organizations (UUs for Economic Justice, Unitarian Universalist History and Heritage Association, etc), and, presumably, just people who write to 24 Farnesworth Street and say, “Sign me up” but do not choose to join the Church of the Larger Fellowship. To Tom’s post, I responded that this used to be Unitarian polity, prior to 1925. Congregations joined their local chapter of a separate but linked organization, the National Conference of Unitarian and Other Liberal Christian Churches, while both individuals and congregations signed up to support the American Unitarian Organization. Until 1899, the AUA’s function was producing Unitarian materials for reading, reflection, discussion, worship, and personal spiritual growth, and providing these products to individuals or congregations who requested them. Naturally, a lot of congregations wanted this information packaged in a human minister, so the AUA helped them obtain ministers known to them through participation in the production, examination, and dissemination of AUA materials, particularly through graduation in certain schools for ministry.

To Samuel Atkins Eliot II and his modernizing allies, this bicameral structure was not just cumbersome, it diluted the message and decentralized control of adherents. When the AUA redid its bylaws in 1899, casting itself as an activists corporation with an executive president and advisory board of directors, it set the goal of linking all congregations through a single hub, and connecting all individuals through their local, hub-linked, hub-approved parish minister.

Many Unitarians — often with Universalist comraderie (Universalism did not require congregational membership) — preferred to forge, improve, and employ connections around primary interests other than congregational worship and polity. What used to be “the affiliate organizations” developed large constituencies, many of whom cared nothing for congregational life. I spent my most active, most stable UU years not in any one congregational setting, but in two affiliate organizations, the Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship and the Unitarian Universalist Historical Society. To this day, I have more active religious conversations with folks I know through these affiliations rather than those I know through congregational ties. Most of us in these groups believe that the UUA Board of Directors voted to jettison the affiliated organizations because they envy their vital, mostly self-sustaining communities. UU camps, scholarly groups, social justice networks — all demoted, until such time as we rearrange ourselves according to UUA instructions. 

Instead of re-fighting those battles, let’s walk back those paths a bit, to see how much can be recovered as a foundation for what Rev. Schade proposes we do. Our denomination would have massive separate subsections, with mission-focused publications and ministerial credentialing criteria (Eliot was big on all ministers fitting his model, which was male and hyper-academic, faithfully served by devoted wives and children. Can you say “Victorian Era”?) Ministers like me, whose primary gifts lie in areas of content, would be accountable to examining boards who can judge what we say we know and what we do with it. Our products would be workshops, ministerial tutorials, guest preaching gigs — and management of the materials in which our content appears, such as libraries and media channels. Ministers whose primary gifts are pastoral and administrative would nurture, educate, and credential in their own streams, again according to what they covenant to prioritize. 

And who would locate individual UUs within these complex networks? Let’s jump the rail here, to the Universalist State Convention structure, the very first target of Eliot’s streamlining enthusiasm. Universalists belonged to state conventions, which had diverse manifestions, only some of which were congregations. They met in various ways for various purposes, and sometimes the folks who met for other purposes chose to link into congregations and call a ministry. The state convention owned the church building, so that if this node of congregational enthusiasts dissolved, died, or went broke, the building became an asset for other folks ready to make themselves vessels of the fundamental faith.  Several of the state conventions marshaled their forces to plant major congregations in major cities, but again, these were state convention projects until the hope of merger with Unitarians led to congregational bylaws and covenants.

And what happened when a Universalist moved out of one struggling rural area into a more promising one in a different state convention? The state conventions had a national organization, whose function was not religious, but administrative. Scott Wells, at Boy in the Bands, is my go-to expert on Universalist polity, so he would be the one to ask about what the Universalist National Convention did prior to its reformulation as The Universalist Church of America — which it did, openly, as a requirement for consolidating with the American Unitarian Association into a new, superceding entity to be called the Unitarian Universalist Association.

My guess is that the answer to that question will show us powerful ancestral precedent for what Tom is proposing. But I would be untrue to my old mentor, C. Conrad Wright, and his faithful Universalist ally, Alan Seaberg, if I said that all we need to do is turn back the clock and lean more weight on the other of our two historical rails. Universalist polity had genuine problems that need to be thoroughly considered before we all burst into yet another chorus of, “It’s Universalist, It’s Okay” (to the tune of “He’s A Lumberjack,”) it’s time for our serious Universalist forebears and scholars to guide our conversation. Let’s get out those old copies of The Larger Hope, and countless editions of Proceedings of the Unitarian Universalist Historical Society. Let’s dig into long-buried sermon collections in the various state convention archives, many of which are amazingly rich and well-tended, but not in or near Harvard’s UUA Archives. 

There are right and wrong ways to follow up on a worthy proposal. Maybe the UUA has taken the UUA model a step too far. But before we get all upset and call for firing somebody, let’s remember that Tom has identified a crisis of abundance. There are too many folks who want to be UUs, who want to be served by UUs, who want to hang out with UUs, to fit into what Eliot wanted to carefully manage as a tiny, elitist archetype. In a very real sense, the real reason to look at Universalist polity again is that Universalism has won the merger wars. More people nowadays identify with one of the Universalist theologies than with ANY of the Unitarian ones — if they even can separate the Socinians from the Arians from the pantheists. But the first time around, Universalism was also winning the theological competition: mainline religions, including Unitarianism, were dropping hell like hotcakes. So we need to remember that good theology did not, back in its heyday, overcome something terribly awkward and untenable in its polity.

Quick Notes on Lent and Facebook

Sometimes we know what we are supposed to do for Lent and sometimes God overrules our proposals. 

Like many, my thought was to give up Facebook, at least in the voluminous torrents I often enjoy. That didn’t last long. 

Instead, God has showed me how to follow these Facebook torrents into a deeper, richer life. Bear in mind, as a caregiver in an ice-encrusted freeze zone (that part of Vermont you see in the purple upper corner of your national weather map), Facebook has been my primary safe and reliable social realm for months now. So within the first week, I had signed back on, just because there was too much ice between my front door and my automobile.

And then, God opened the whole thing like a flower. Old friends who came back into my life via Facebook came up for visits. With one I attended a concert; with the other my beloved and I enjoyed an extended sleep-over. (Note to rookies: back when I lived in Boston, where there were more close-in options, people used to plan who to get snowed in with.) These visits, both with friends of more than three decades, acted more or less like fertilizing a scraggly plant.

But God does not plan for me only to enjoy this Lent, to pretend I need no real correction. Another long-ago co-religionist, not really a close friend, but a close co-worker, is using Lent to give up, and to lead others in giving up, personal plastics. And although I do not aspire to zero in this regard, just participating in this Facebook community has renewed some skills I put aside awhile ago. She’s got me schlepping my own containers and bags into the bulk department, instead of reaching for the easy roll-out. It takes time to mark a tare weight on each one, but once you do it, there it is. And setting the schlepp box on the counter means repacking the containers as soon as they’re empty and clean, rather than looking for them next time. This doesn’t just make me feel good. It makes me feel closer to someone who turns out to have been something more than a passing compatibility.

The sum total of this is more than any one relationship. My family culture tended toward what sociologists call “instrumental relationships.” That is, someone who is useful. Who is congenial in this particular task or pleasure. Facebook is helping me uncover all that snow, to find that some of what I supposed to be annuals were really perennials putting down roots.

Another Generation Gap Story

Sunday’s New York Times Magazine had a fascinating article about the way young and old engineers in Silicon Valley have developed distance from, and scorn for, each other. It was great to see that another profession has the same kind of problem as religion, as new generations attempt to enter a profession.

It got me wondering: why is this not happening for the hands-on artisans for whom I do the occasional memorial services? The young folks take time off from work to show up and pay tribute to mentors. The families of the mentors talk about the pride in passing along a craft. Yet these folks are electricians, lab technicians, not people stuck in buggy whips. New learning is something they seem to share with each other, rather than a competition, a prize.

There is no way I can figure out this difference, but I can see it. And now, here it is for you as well.

Pragmatism, Philosophy, or Family Systems? How to Challenge a Conservative Member of Congress

This morning on C-Span, my beloved and I are watching Tom Vilsak, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, take questions from the House Committee on Agriculture. What caught my attention was a sequence in which a congressman from Kentucky (I believe it was Rep. Hal Rogers, of the Fifth District, i.e., Bluegrass Country) expressed concern about advertising or soliciting people to sign up for SNAP, aka Food Stamps. It was a simple exchange, really. The member of congress wanted to be sure the Dept of Agriculture is not encouraging people to sign up. The secretary said that 1) since the program has been voted and funded, the department educates people about it; 2) the department does not pay anyone to go out and recruit people to sign up, in order for the recruiter to receive a per capita payment; and 3) the details of informing the public is funded by the department, but the states define the mechanism within their borders.

When the member of congress persisted that what some people call “education” looks a lot like “recruitment” when it gets so many more people to sign up, the secretary rejoined that surely the member of Congress wants people who need food stamps and are eligible to receive them. No one, said the secretary, wants food stamps going to people who are not eligible, but that is not inherent in a rising number receiving them. He looks forward to having a reduction in recipients as the economy continues to improve.

That was the pragmatic approach: it’s been decided and it’s getting done. It avoided the philosophical question completely, by saying that he is dealing with an amount that has been voted.

But suppose he had taken a different tack? Suppose, instead of using national numbers, the secretary had focused into food stamp increases in Kentucky. Because it turns out Kentucky has had a large increase in SNAP usage recently, and reasonable minds might wonder why.

Suppose the secretary had said,

“Your state, sir, is a good example of what we’re up against. Kentucky’s median household income in 2000 was $43,821. In 2012, it was $41,784. Even after accounting for the margin of error, there are many more families in Kentucky who have seen their household income go down. Consequently, your state’s SNAP participation has gone from 600,000 families to over 800,000 families. Now to me, although that looks like a huge expansion of the program, when I see those income numbers, I am grateful to the Congress for allowing me to help feed those Kentucky families.”

And then he stops. Waits to see what the interrogator says.

It would not have been hard for the secretary to prepare for that exchange. It has taken me less than twenty minutes to put this together, because I call up US Census numbers all the time and my computer knows which ones I usually look at. And although there are fifty states and several territories represented in Congress, not all of them have delegates scheduled for that hearing that day.

This approach is not just for the secretary of Agriculture. How many of us sit spewing vitriol at our televisions, posting angry, derisive memes across our Facebook pages? Yet how are we going to reach people who are hurting themselves if we do not model concern about their pain? And the first step would be to stop hurting the, with our anger and derision. Instead, let’s join them in facing this new world we’re in, and talking about the victims who are important to those we deride.

I’m not saying it will work. But whatever we’re doing now isn’t working. Maybe this can help.

Why Almost All the Voters Are Angry

Why Almost All the Voters Are Angry

As we open our voting season for 2014, I offer you (linked through my title line) a single article, from the Economic Policy Institute, which to my mind explains why all the voters, right and left, are angry. It also explains why that whole “golden mean in the middle” is not gonna happen. If there is no economic middle, there will not be a political middle, because the political middle only forms to defend the economic middle. And that is gone.

These charts are amazingly clear on the topic of economic injustice. And I gotta eat some crow here, because it shows that the decline and virtual disappearance of the racial economic justice that I’d been carrying along, in old news from the 1990s. Still, it’s worth pointing out that just because the big winners are white, and the just-hanging-on are mostly white, that doesn’t mean that most whites are doing fine.

Same with men. Turns out that men working full time over the past decade have had a substantial drop in real wages, while women working full time have seen a modest rise. I don’t think that means “the black woman took my job,” but there is something to be said for the differing trend lines by gender.

But perhaps women are earning more because we have finally caught up and moved ahead in college graduation rates? Turns out  — and I have to just cut and paste, because otherwise you’ll never believe me — 

  • “Workers with high levels of education have not been spared from weak earnings trends over the last decade. Between 2002 and 2012, full-time, full-year workers age 25 and over with a college degree saw their wages drop—by 6.8 percent for women and by 8.7 percent for men.”

(If you’re looking at the full article, they unpack this further in “Figure D.”

Figure G is instructive, because it shows the way household income for elderly used to be so much lower than for young adults, but now is passing young adult household income. 

So when President Obama says your child ought to be in college, I’d weigh those loans pretty carefully. Not only are they not gonna pay for themselves, they are likely to eat the remains of any pension the family accrued and managed to hang onto so far. And the next time someone tells you that people who went to college do so much better than people who didn’t, I’d hold up those declining college-propped incomes and ask, “If I’m doing so much better than these other folks, how are they even surviving?”

It’s not just political season again, it’s also the moment when my denominational co-religionists, the Unitarian Universalists, are registering for our annual resolution-fest, the General Assembly. Other religions undoubtedly are doing the same. So whatever arena you’re voting in, secular or religious, here are some facts to ground your deliberations.


On Choosing Not to See “12 Years a Slave”

Rev. Meg Riley wrote a thoughtful piece about why white folks need to see this tough-to-take movie, even though we cringe at the horrors so well communicated. All her points ring true, but this sensitive white person still plans to pass it by. Bear in mind, as a full time caregiver, I haven’t seen any other movies in theater, either. But this will not be the one and only for this yearning cinephile when we finally organize the respite care schedule better. (Neither will “Gravity:” my finalists are “American Hustle,” “Frozen, and, at the top of the list, “Philomena.”

But Rev. Meg made me think pretty hard about our white duty right now. She also jogged a memory of someone in my on-line universe (who are you? Please step forward and take credit!) who commented on the Academy’s complete abandonment of “Fruitvale Station.” That commentator pondered that we still have “only one” syndrome. “Only one” film about African American historical injustices. “Only one” nominee from your-category-here-if-you’re-not-Euro-American-identified. “Only one” film that speaks more to the conscience than to the industry. Indeed, Rev. Meg herself uses the lingering revulsion from this movie to tweak her already-well-stoked conscience about unjust imprisonment and/or deportation.

Remembering that “only one” analysis dims the joy I felt last night over “Twelve Years’ ” victory. And why? Because as horrible as it is, slavery is, in our country, as depicted in this movie, not happening anymore. The killing depicted in “Fruitvale Station,” however, continues to stalk our landscape. If you are more worried about the Russians in Ukraine than about the police in your rear-view mirror at night, you, my friend, just passed your “white is all right” test. And you are probably more comfortable with “Twelve Years a Slave” than with “Fruitvale Station,” because basically, the latter film pushes something horrible into your face in the midst of a familiar and safe-to-you landscape. I lived in San Francisco when BART opened. I have friends who still ride it all the time. “Fruitvale Station” will be history someday, but right now it’s part of the world in which I pretend to stewardship. Social contract.

Forty-eight hours from now, those of us who take part in such observances will take down our last Christmas greenery, answer the last holiday cards, go to church to get smudged, to repent, to vow that we will do better, at least for forty days. Again we will enter Lent. Perhaps as you reread Rev. Riley and commit to seeing “Twelve Years a Slave,” you’ll contemplate the injustice that stalks the descendants of Solomon Nothrup by seeing “Fruitvale Station.”