Doug Muder, who is a member of the Unitarian Universalist Lay Theological Education Task Force (UULTE) wants to ask you a question about how to spend a big chunk of money. Doug writes:

I’m a member of the Unitarian Universalist Lay Theological Education Task Force (UULTE). We’re supposed to figure out what to do with half the money that was collected for Association Sunday — the half earmarked for “lay theological education.” I’m asking for your blog’s help in starting a discussion about what needs “lay theological education” ought to satisfy. The UULTE task force is soliciting proposals from various organizations, and I’m sure we’ll get plans for a lot of good stuff. (Curricula, new resources, online infrastructure, and so on.) But will we get the stuff that Unitarian Universalists need? If we get it, will we recognize it?

What I’m hoping to see is a lot of testimony by and discussion about individual Unitarian Universalists who find themselves at a plateau. They’re happy with Unitarian Universalism as far as it goes and as far as they understand it, but they feel a call to go deeper and they don’t know how to answer it. Maybe they’ve been trying to answer by doing more: joining committees, starting projects, and so on. But outer work at some point needs to be balanced with some inner work. And how do you do Unitarian Universalist inner work? Or how do you make the leap from being a Unitarian Universalist fellow traveler to feeling like you are really part of the UU tradition?

There are bunch of ideas to disentangle here. Some people talk about “education.” Some talk about “faith development” or “spiritual maturity” or “finding a Unitarian Universalist identity.” I encourage you not to get hung up on words and labels. Think about that person at a plateau: What does s/he need that the community could offer?

In the discussions the task force has had among ourselves, we talk a lot about the gap between the kinds of adult education you’d find at a typical Unitarian Universalist church, and the far more arduous program of a divinity school. What could we offer the person who wants to go deeper, but can’t take years out of his/her life and spend tens of thousands of dollars? That’s the “lay” part of “lay theological education.” You shouldn’t have to become a minister to find yourself as a Unitarian Universalist.

Anyway, you’d be doing me a favor — and helping the Unitarian Universalist Association get insight — if you’d raise these issues on your blog.

Thank you, Doug, for raising these issues, and asking for our responses. A fair number of my readers are not Unitarian Universalists, but I think they should feel free to comment, too.

Mr. Crankypants sees that the Commission on Appraisal of the Unitarian Universalist Association has issued a draft revision of Article II of the bylaws of the Unitarian Universalist Association. Let’s look this document over as if it’s a term paper, and mark it up accordingly. For reference, here’s the document (thanks to Scott Wells).

Let’s use the Red Pen first:

Line 1: Title is misleading. This paper reads as if it is bylaws rather than a covenant. Review historic prose styles of covenants. Then either change the title to something like “Principles and Purposes of These Bylaws” or “Profession of Faith,” — or rewrite the whole paper so that it sounds like a solemn agreement that is entered into by two or more parties.

Line 7: “Principles” should not be capitalized. It cannot be a proper noun in this context.

Lines 10-11: Summing up two complex religious traditions in this offhand way is questionable. Cite references, please. Also, please make clear that you are referring to North American religious traditions, as there are other traditions with the same name in other parts of the world which differ substantially from the North American versions.

Lines 26-27: Weak, flabby prose. Instead of saying things like “Grateful for the traditions… we strive to avoid misappropriation” etc., why not just say: “We are our own religious selves, with our own religious traditions, and we promise not to be cultural imperialists who steal and exploit other religious traditions.”

Lines 29-67: Too wordy. Mushy prose. This sounds like it was written by a committee, all of whom were chewing on mashed potatoes. Rewrite, rewrite, rewrite!

Line 32: “Beloved Community” should not be capitalized. Worse, it smacks of jargon and the phrase should be completely removed.

Lines 69-75: Excessively legalistic, and filled with meaningless catchphrases. What is it that you are asking people to do? Rewrite, rewrite, rewrite!

Now let’s give it a grade, and offer some overall comments:

Grade: C-

This paper does not live up to its title. The excessive use of jargon is absolutely inexcusable, and obscures what might otherwise be fairly good prose. The paper is far too long, given what it is trying to say, and should be half the present length. Your paper has potential, though. To raise your grade, you can rewrite it completely and resubmit it. However, consider bringing it to a class workshop for peer comments, and consider asking the tutors at the Writing Center to help you remove catchphrases and jargon.

Finally, Mr. Crankypants hopes that regular reader Mme. Merde-Merde, who is a professor of writing and composition, will offer her own thoughts on this…. or any other reader, for that matter, although the rest of you will probably be too nice.

Oh yeah, and let’s not forget that two years ago already Mr. C. wrote a much better version of this.