The Unitarian Universalist Association has a new survey they are asking people to respond to. In some of the headers on the survey site, this survey is identified as “The Future of Unitarian Universalism.”
To take the survey yourself, go here.
After you have taken the survey, come back here and summarize or post your responses. I’ll put my responses to the survey after the jump. And let’s hope most of you are less cynical in your responses than I was….
The UUA Board of Trustees is looking for feedback on why the UUA exists and what impacts we want it to make. Please help us shape the future of our Association by responding to the few short questions below.
1. The UUA Board and President are considering expanding the definition of our Association beyond congregations to include “covenanted communities”. What comes to mind when you see the phrase “covenanted communities”? Do you see a benefit in including “covenanted communities” explicitly? Why or why not?
What comes to my mind is “bullshit.” (Sorry to be crude, but there’s no other word.) Most UUs don’t know or care what a covenant is, so this will leave out genuine UU individuals and groups. And fringe groups will figure out that all they have to do is come up with a covenant, and — bingo! — get full acceptance.
2. One of the ways we are considering describing congregations in our Association is: “Congregations are intentionally inclusive, multi-generational and multi-cultural in powerful mission to, and with, under-served and un-served communities.” Which words are most important to you in this statement? Please tell us what those words mean to you.
This sounds like upper middle class highly educated white people feeling guilty. The words I’d be moved by — words like “love,” “sacred,” “universal,” etc. — don’t appear at all. Yawn.
3. The board is also looking at what we want more of — including more people served by congregations and covenanted communities, more covenanted congregations, and more inspired religious leaders to effectively start and sustain new covenanted communities. a) How important is each of these to you and to your vision of what the Unitarian Universalist Association needs more of?
Net increase in the number of people served by our congregations and covenanted communities.
Net increase in the number of people served by our congregations and covenanted communities.
Net increase in inspired religious leaders equipped to effectively start and sustain new covenanted communities.
Comments:
(1) As much as I’m committed to growth, net increases in the above don’t matter if there’s no net increase in spiritual maturity. This probably didn’t make it onto your list because we can’t come up with a metric to measure it.
(2) I can’t judge how important these are unless I see your metrics for measuring them. So, for example, currently the UUA’s primary metric for growth is certified membership in a congregation, but it has become obvious how flawed this metric is, and so now I would rate it very low. But if I can’t see how you’re going to measure the above, and judge how useful those metrics will be, I can’t judge which is important.
b) Please rank these statement by importance to the future of Unitarian Universalism. If you think all are equally important, leave blank.
Increase in number of people served
Increase in number of mutually covenanted congregations
Increase in religious leaders able to start and sustain new covenanted communities
Outcomes (Ends) Feedback
Please provide any feedback you have on these outcomes. These outcomes, as used by the board, are not meant to be a vision or public statement of who we are, but rather are the instructions to the UUA President on how resources should be allocated to determine what differences the UUA should make.
This is referred to as the “Global End” and is the overall impact that the UUA will make: 1.0 A healthy network of covenanted Unitarian Universalist congregations and covenanted communities, in accountable relationships and alive with transforming power, moving our local communities and the world towards more love, justice, and peace at a justifiable cost that does not undermine long term sustainability.
What I hear in this is: “Do good stuff if we can afford it.” This is an extremely ambivalent message to send to the Executive Director (a.k.a. the UUA President). It sounds to me like there are deep divisions in the Board, probably between fiscal conservatives and some other group, that are not even close to being resolved. As an ED of an organization with a goal like this, I would feel it was necessary either (a) to basically ignore this statement and build a new board consensus while moving forward with programs and services and increasing efficiency; or (b) do nothing but placate the warring board members.
The next seven statements are further detail about the impacts we want to make.
1.1 Congregations have and use UUA resources necessary to enhance the spiritual and religious exploration by people in their communities and to enhance the ministry of their members.
This is what I’d like to see: “The UUA will provide resources to congregations to further spiritual maturity, and the UUA will assess whether congregations actually need and use those resources, and whether those resources are actually effective.”
1.2 Congregations are better able to achieve their missions and to spread awareness of UU ideals and principles through their participation in covenanted networks of UU congregations and covenanted communities.
Wow, this is so vague I don’t even know what it means.
1.3 Congregations are intentionally inclusive, multi-generational and multi-cultural in powerful mission to, and with, under-served and un-served communities.
Sounds like over-educated aging Baby Boomers feeling guilty. Sounds like the identified problem is those blasted minorities and parents with children who are not willing to become UUs.
1.4 Net increase in the number of people served by our congregations and covenanted communities.
Good luck measuring this without it being a meaningless number. It will be necessary to provide a common set of criteria to define “served by” in order for this to have any meaning.
1.5 Net increase in the number of mutually covenanted congregations.
This one makes sense, it is measurable, it is realistic, and it is achievable. If this is really adopted, I would want to see it enforced — no increase, the ED gets fired.
1.6 Net increase in inspired religious leaders equipped to effectively start and sustain new covenanted communities.
“Covenanted communities” is too vague. Why not get serious, and say “new congregations, recognizing that congregation can take unconventional forms.” Then this goal would be measurable, achievable, and realistic. As it is, it’s little more than fluff.
1.7 UU institutions are healthy, vital, collaborative partners invested in the future of UUism, its principles and theologies.
This sounds good at first, but ultimately I don’t know what it really means.
Do you have any general feedback about these statements?
I get no sense that the Board feels itself accountable to a higher purpose or calling. These statements sound like the worst of nonprofit culture — attendant to all the fads, paying lip service to social innovation, but ultimately stuck in some kind of strange stasis. This does not make me feel very hopeful about the UUA’s future — while I’m feeling very hopeful about some of the things that I’ve seen happening out in the real world.
[After providing name and identifying information, one more question:]
Is there anything else you would like to tell us?
I am quite hopeful about Unitarian Universalism right now, but the UUA seems on a downwards trend over the past decade. This happens in organizations — there are upwards trends, and downwards trends — but reading this survey has made me feel less (not more) optimistic about the UUA.
My reaction was nearly as cynical. But still, what you say here is so true for me…….
“This does not make me feel very hopeful about the UUA’s future — while I’m feeling very hopeful about some of the things that I’ve seen happening out in the real world.”
Exactly. And that is what matters the most.
Two observations: (1), A question: What, pray tell, is a covenanted community? and (2) I will believe that the UUA is sincere about “inclusiveness” when they’re willing to include the unborn.
I threw up in my mouth a little reading these questions. I cannot respond without such a dose of vitriol as to be potentially perceived as abusive. If this is the state-of-the-art in UU’ism, what are we actually about? You won’t see this level of touchy feel doublespeak anywhere else outside of a liberal arts graduate program or a complacent non-profit. Blargh.
My responses were variation on a theme of “What the heck are you talking about?” And “This describes a ideal, not a reality.” Or sometimes “Why?”
I hear a lot of talk about inclusiveness, but it seems to all be framed in language that is very specifically geared toward ultra-intellectuals. I think most UUs don’t want to admit that many pieces of UU literature are written in such a way that they come across as being purposely obtuse because we’re afraid of being thrown out of the smart club. (Notice how hard I’m trying to sound like I’m smart enough to belong in the group?) I have a degree in Biology with a minor in Chemistry. I’m certainly above average in intelligence, and yet I find myself rereading each sentence several times to be sure that I’m understanding their intent. It doesn’t help that when I finally get all the clauses straightened out I can’t find a concrete point.
One problem seems to be that in trying to include every possible aspect of an issue into each sentence, the writers blur the message. A course in technical writing could help them to communicate more effectively. What they’re doing right now amounts to throwing a basketball at a dart board.
The other problem is much tougher to solve. The inclusiveness they aspire to seems to be limited based on class and education. How do you propose to exercise a “powerful mission to, and with, under-served, and un-served, communities” if some of those communities don’t have access to the quality of education that you’ve had and don’t want to subject themselves to condescension? Being poor doesn’t come with a special protection from the knowledge that other people look down on you. I know. I’ve been there.