Growing in Spirit and Growing in Service

Growing in Spirit and Growing in Service

(USH-Enews supplement 03-19-09)

I’m told that it’s like "horse and carriage…love and marriage"—you don’t grow one unless the other is growing too! And, like "love and marriage," the connection often needs attention.

This is a very long memo about the nature of that connection regarding USH and the Greater Hartford Interfaith Coalition for Equity and Justice. If you are a member of our congregation I hope for your attention.

Some of us at USH grow in service through affiliating in some way with one or more of the organizations for which a "good neighbor offering" is received on occasion. Planning the services when these offerings are received has given me a chance to think about how to honor the causes and values behind those organizations, and to become more aware of the precious resources on which those relationships thrive--our money, our miniscule 52 hours per year devoted to communal worship, and the energy of our volunteers. As such, these are relationships which we do not take up or leave off without serious thought. (For example, in the last year, the USH Board determined to resign USH from the UU Partner Church program because the repeated efforts to find several folks to take up this project in hands on service beyond an offering had not been successful. Some folks disagreed with this decision, saying that receiving an offering alone is an act of service. These connections between "spirit" and "service" are not simple.)

Those in congregational leadership know that there has been a tension at USH around social responsibility for many years, though the specific issues seem to shift somewhat from era to era. For example, I’ve read of ongoing discord as to whether our resources should be focused more on what UU minister and writer Richard Gilbert called “social service” (the hands on "social responsibility" which focuses on person to person aid) or on "social justice" work, which for my purposes today I’ll define as social advocacy and witness work for legislative and cultural change at the systemic level. With the help of those who created the new governance system and those who have tirelessly worked to create a collegial Council on Social Justice, that issue seems less provocative now. The recent SJ survey, completed by 40 members, and it’s analysis by SJ leadership is a current example of their ongoing effort to be responsive to the congregation at large, and to sponsor programs and projects which reflect USH interests and values. We will soon hear their analysis and suggestions.

This tension is common in religious groups that sponsor both forms of social responsibility - social service and social justice opportunities. I have attended numerous seminars on the subject of integrating social responsibility work into the life of the congregation. Last year I participated in a four day interfaith training on giving pastoral care to social justice advocates, a sure indication that the pain sometimes felt around this issue, by our social justice advocacy members and by those who serve the larger world in other ways, is wide spread. When people who care and serve passionately, and have differing strategies for acting out that care, there is bound to be disagreement, especially where resources must be shared, and especially in these economic times.

Most recently in our own congregation, a request was made at the 2008 Annual Meeting in June that the congregation vote to fulfill our covenant of $2,000 in dues to a local interfaith organization, Greater Hartford Interfaith Coalition for Equity and Justice. To my mind that request showed that the folks most committed to ICEJ among us felt that they were not being satisfied, heard, or respected by working through the other representative channels of governance, such that a certain distrust required that they seek public address. Those in executive and financial leadership who had ratified the covenant made with ICEJ, thought that distrust was unwarranted, and felt similarly—not heard and not respected.

Because one of our primary values has to do with democratic process, and because UUs support a fully informed public as essential to the work of justice, I suggested at that meeting that a vote made without full understanding would not likely end in a sustainable decision. I asked instead that church leaders call a meeting on the subject of our relationship with ICEJ. I suggested that historical, mission, and financial information about ICEJ, about USH, and about the relationship between them be sent out before hand. When I began talking with SJ leaders about that meeting later, I was asked that we wait until sometime in the coming year—my memory is faulty, but I recall that they wanted to wait until after the SJ survey was done.

I continue to think that, in order to support justice among us, the congregation should be fully apprised of the concerns felt by folks who support ICEJ, and that church leaders should share any views they have about our being dues paying members of ICEJ, which is currently the only external organization to which USH pays dues. Both groups want to serve you; neither group knows for sure what you will think, having seen the big picture.

It’s now time to make our USH covenant to membership and dues for ICEJ for the coming year, and we have not yet had that congregational meeting to review our relationship with ICEJ, and to determine the amount of money we will pledge to them in the coming year.

This is unfortunate because there is disagreement about the dollar amount to be promised at the ICEJ covenanting ceremony on March 31. As I understand it, the Board has determined that outside organizations will be financially supported by USH only to the amount of money received through offerings, and SJ folk want a specific dollar commitment, which might require the use of other church funds if not met through offerings or other SJ fund raising projects.

For my first two years with you, we had offerings on two Sundays each year in order to honor our covenant with ICEJ, a practice which I did not continue this year for these reasons: The Worship Arts Sub-Council has taken seriously the preparation of worship such that it gives information about the organization to receive the offering, and that it inspires giving; I think that finding new organizations for our offerings would help to keep the spirit of the "good neighbor" generosity alive during worship, and would be opportunity for members not directly involved in the COSJ a chance to speak for and call our attention to the groups they serve. I am also aware that the way our congregation meets its commitment as a dues paying member of ICEJ is primarily through offerings.

This time last spring, I sensed a degree of ambiguity about the degree of USH commitment to ICEJ, and declined to sign the covenant for $2,000 for membership in this the 08-09 year without further conversation. The Board agreed with me that more clarity was needed, and at the same time, they felt that more time was needed for those discussions. As a result, the president Bill Young signed the covenant and presented it at the ICEJ covenanting service in March 08.

Then, at the July 08 Board meeting, the Board affirmed its intention to cover amounts up to $2,000 which are not met by offerings. As I recall it, we then sent around $1,000 to ICEJ in July from the general budget.

At that same July 08 Board meeting, the decision was made to reduce our sexton’s hours, and to terminate the youth group assistant position-- the assistant had just resigned, leaving the position open. It was painful to some leaders that those things happened at the same time—cutting back staff coverage for our facility and for our children, and covering ICEJ dues. They are of course not directly related, but this does speak to the urgent need to have clarity and to prioritize our spending as we go forward.

What would be required such that everyone concerned with this quandary was heard, understood, and respected?

Being a thinker I of course begin at the systemic level, and as an NVC thinker I begin at the level of the deepest needs which motivate our feelings and behaviors.

Our deepest needs have to do with meaning. Some of us find meaning in service and grow in sprit as a result. Some of us find meaning in nurturing the spirit and grow in offering service as a result.
A thorough understanding from a religious/theological perspective would address the perceived dichotomy between "service and spirit" in religious groups—between social justice and other social responsibility work, and the pursuit of personal spirituality and communal nurture. This debate has gone on since the birth of the Christian church, and is thoroughly debated in the book of James, in the New Testament, as the dichotomy between "faith" and "works." James loudly proclaims that "faith without works is dead!" Others at that time and right down to Martin Luther said, “Sola Fidelis!”—it is ONLY faith that is essential. This issue is important to other faiths as well, and is sometimes resolved through the issue of a religious "tax" obligation.

Other foci would be required if the discussion took up organizational implications, such as, how can we distinguish between the personal social responsibility interests of particular members and those interests and issues which the congregation as a whole will support? Then, with decreasing financial resources, how will the congregation give support to groups which address issues like hunger and homelessness, which our congregational survey has shown as our highest priority? And how can we support those causes while sustaining our own core, preserving our own organization? Finally, what priority must we give within our congregation, to the programs we offer?

These are big questions. Our COSJ is asking those questions now; our Board is addressing policy concerns based on those questions.

I am confident that working together, with candor and courage, these things will be ironed out. I see the current question regarding our formal association with ICEJ as an opportunity to begin exploring those bigger questions. Further, the current dilemma with ICEJ has a relational dimension which, as a faith community, we must attend to, because people of good will among us are feeling pain about this.

I envision some forum for intentional listening within some behavioral covenant by which we remind ourselves of the importance of kindness, civility, listening, patience, and perhaps most important, assuming good will (giving the other the benefit of the doubt, asking for more information rather than making assumptions or judgments.)

I am confident that our USH leadership will continue seeking clarity on the specifics of the relationship between USH and ICEJ, and that they will make information available to the congregation such that a wise decision can be made.

I am sharing this publicly because I abide in the notion that a group is more healthy as more people have full access to information relevant to the life of the group, and because I am convinced that our competent and caring leaders will find a way to use this particular issue as a vehicle for coming together in order to make further contribution to our growing integration of service and spirit in our society.

If this issue interests you, feel free to speak with any congregational leader with your questions and views. At the annual meeting last year, our own wonderful Edward Richardson made a motion that we take an offering for ICEJ every week until we gather the dues required! That exemplifies the ‘can-do’ thinking as well as the creative and responsive imaginative spirit among us, both of which will, I’m sure, come into play as we address again the relationship between USH and ICEJ, and as we explore the bigger concern of clarifying our core needs, and fiscal accountability and courageous action.

As ever,
Rev BJ

Let us know of any comments, errors and corrections - thanks (revised 03/19/09)