The UUCW Nugget
February 24, 2016
 
Office Hours
(Sept 1, 2015 - 
June 30, 2016):
Mon, Tues, Wed: 
9 am - 3 pm
Thur. 9 am - 2 pm
(Closed 2nd Wed.
Oct - May)


Congregational Mission Statement
"The members and friends of the Unitarian Universalist 
Church of Worcester covenant to be a congregation of love, hope and justice inspiring people to take on the challenges of a changing world."
  
Welcoming Church 
Mission Statement 

The LGBTQI and Allies of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Worcester strives to further the affirmation and celebration of LGBTQI individuals in all aspects of the church community. We also seek to increase the visibility of UUCW as a Welcoming Congregation within the greater community.
 
Policy for a Better UUCW
Bill Derr, President, UUCW Board of Management

In 2010 the UUCW Board tasked the Futures II team with identifying leadership development issues, barriers to leadership that our existing governance system created, and to propose and implement changes to our governance system to address those issues. In their research, the Futures II team discovered that in order to have a more effective governance system the UUCW first needs to identify its mission. A mission is an expression of the good the  congregation means to do, how it will change lives, and what its central principles and values are. The Futures II Team, with 30 interviewers, spoke with 172 congregants and staff to uncover the community's aspirations and dreams. The feedback was analyzed and a new articulation of our Mission emerged. Once the Mission was adopted by the congregation, the staff, Board of Management, and Futures Team developed Vision Statements and Vision Paths. The Vision Statements and Vision Paths function as the "road map" that give direction to develop programs that will, in turn, satisfy the Mission.

After leading the congregation in articulating a mission, the Futures II Team started researching several possible governance models. From their research they determined that adopting a Policy Governance structure should eliminate the problems found in our previous governance structure. The congregation is now in its second year of experimenting with a Policy Governance system.

The key elements of a policy governance system include:
  1. Two spheres of leadership that are differentiated in the congregation. The first is governance which include articulating a mission, selecting a strategy for getting there, making sure it happens, and making sure people and property are protected from harm. The second is ministry which is everything the congregation does, the daily practical work of the congregation.
  2. The board makes the governance decisions. The board represents the membership by articulating the mission and vision, evaluating programs, and ensuring responsible stewardship of resources
  3. The  executive (currently our minister Aaron Payson) is responsible and accountable for all program decisions. The executive develops a structure that enables program leaders (lay and staff) to work harmoniously to create  programs with the support of a system that delegates authority and requires accountability.
  4. Governance and Ministry are addressed differently in the policy governance system but they do not exist in isolation. They are connected in the following ways:
    1. The board and ministry leaders work together to do things like set annual goals or articulate a mission.
    2. The board connects with ministry leaders by adopting  policies that guide their work.
    3. The board holds the ministry staff accountable, delegated power is matched with fair oversight.
  5. A healthy governance system has a clear structure that can be easily followed when various decisions need to be made. For any decision a good governance systems lays out who needs to be involved and consulted and who ultimately responsible for making the final decision.
  6. Governance and Ministry leadership should work together in a partnership which has clear boundaries and mutual support.
One of the key elements to to the Policy Governance system the UUCW has been experimenting with is policy, which is developed by the board. A policy is an authoritative written statement designed to control many individual decisions over time. A policy provides a framework for decisions to be made away from the board table. Good policy delegates authority to ministry leaders and guides them in how that authority should be used. Good policy allows ministry leaders to do the work of daily management of the congregation without having to waste time and energy constantly getting approval from the board.
           
In the new governance system developing policies is the main way the board can guide the UUCW staff and volunteers. One goal of the board policies is to create rules that will help our church avoid the problems in the old UUCW governance system that the Futures II team discovered in their research and church survey. UUCW Board policy should:
  1. Prevent confusion about which leaders are responsible for which parts of our congregation
  2. Allow people involved with church governance and church programs to spend their time nurturing their passions rather than wrestling with ambiguity caused by a poor governance system
  3. Clearly define the role of the board, staff and volunteers
  4. Clearly define relationships between the board, committees, teams, task-forces and staff
  5. Have a unified structure for making operational decisions so that program leaders (volunteers and staff) can work harmoniously together to create effective programs
  6. Meet the specific needs of the uucw in how it differs from other non-profits, congregations etc.
  7. Reduce leadership burnout.
  8. Foster an effective ministry by drafting policies that allow UUCW members and friends to share their talents and interests.
  9. Creates a governance structure that allows leaders to delegate in a way in which goals, purposes and procedures are clear.
  10. Give individuals that have been delegated a task or responsibility the authority to complete that task or responsibility.
The Board Policy Book released last month is the first set of policies released by the board under the new policy governance system, but it is only a start. As the policy governance system continues to be used, future boards will continue to write new policies, and rewrite old policies, to allow the congregation to adapt to future changes. Currently the board is developing policies to help the church improve its internal and external communications. Once the board feels the communication policy is ready for the congregation to review, we will release it as a future Nugget article.

Much of the information in this essay came from the book:
 
Governance and Ministry; Rethinking Board Leadership by Dan Hotchkiss
Blasphemy Past and Present
Rev. David J. Miller, Minister Emeritus

Blasphemy consists in speech or actions that display irreverence toward God, scripture, or the prevailing religion of a given society.  Even religious believers may be considered blasphemers if they do not conform to the prevailing beliefs of the society in which they live; and so, Christians as well as secular thinkers are persecuted in various nations today.
 
In 1838 Universalist minister Abner Kneeland was the last person jailed in the United States on charges of blasphemy.   Parting company with the Universalists of his day, he had published a letter stating (somewhat ambiguously) "Universalists believe in a god which I do not; but believe that their god, with all his moral attributes, (aside from nature itself,) is nothing more than a chimera of their own imagination."  In response, he was charged with Atheism and put on trial for blasphemy in Boston.
 
In his defense, Kneeland stated that, while he disagreed with the Universalists' concept of God, he was a Pantheist rather than an Atheist and that he had a right to be either.
Addressing the court, the prosecution made it clear that it was not just Kneeland's theological views, but also his views on social issues that were on trial.  The online Dictionary of Unitarian and Universalist Biography summarizes the prosecution's statement and the aftermath of the trial in this way:

"The prosecution portrayed his blasphemy as part of a pattern with his social thought. They were, in effect, trying him not just for his theology, but for his politics. For Kneeland had not only denounced the conservative influence of religion on society, but he had called for equal rights for women and equality of races.  He had suggested women keep their own name and bank accounts.  He had spoken out in favor of birth control, divorce, and interracial marriage.  The prosecuting attorney for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts warned the jury that if Kneeland were not punished, 'marriages [will be] dissolved, prostitution made easy and safe, moral and religious restraints removed, property invaded, and the foundations of society broken up, and property made common.'"

"Kneeland spent sixty days in the Boston jail in 1838. William Ellery Channing put together a petition for his pardon based upon the principles of freedom of speech and press, which was signed by many prominent people, including Ralph Waldo Emerson, Theodore Parker, George Ripley, William Lloyd Garrison, and Bronson Alcott."

(Channing, Parker and Ripley were Unitarian ministers and Emerson had left the Unitarian ministry for secular endeavors.)

We are fortunate in the U. S. that the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of religion and freedom of speech safeguards the rights of all people, including non-believers, to believe what they must, to speak openly about their beliefs, and put their convictions in print without hindrance from the government.

Others are not so fortunate.  Several Western democracies, including England, have laws (fortunately largely unenforced) that penalize blasphemy.  Beyond that, the International Humanist and Ethical Union's 2014 Freedom of Thought Report shows that 55 countries have blasphemy laws prohibiting criticism of religion. In thirty-nine of these countries blasphemy charges can lead to prison time while in six, charges can lead to the death penalty.

The Secular Coalition for America reports that "On Friday, August 7, [2015], Islamic extremists attacked and murdered atheist blogger, Niloy Neel, in the streets of Dhaka, Bangladesh.  Neel's murder marks the fourth time a secular writer was killed last year alone.  Neel, along with other murdered bloggers Avijit Roy, Ananta Bijoy Das, and Washiqur Rahman, was included on a list of 84 writers distributed by extremists."

Interestingly, a perusal of the website of Open Doors, an organization supporting persecuted Christians worldwide, shows that many of the same countries that persecute non-believers also persecute Christians.

For more information, or to give support to persecuted groups around the world, you may visit these websites:


The website biblestudytools.com argues that the Christian response to blasphemy should be non-violent, following the example of Jesus Christ, who "deliberately accepts the vilification of others and prays for the forgiveness of those who insult him."  The website cites I Peter 2:21-23 "To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.  He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.   When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats."

Open Doors USA cites the United Nations' International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights in defense of religious freedom.

Perhaps non-believers and believers have a common interest in defending human rights for everyone at home and abroad.
Contact Information

Phone:

508-853-1942

Email:

office@uucworcester.org

Fax:

508-853-2065

Website:

www.uucworcester.org

 

 

 

UUCW Facebook

UUCW Twitter