mUUsings

I haven't heard of a church that hasn't experienced a hijacking, even if it was only in the formative years of the fellowship or congregation. One congregation I was with pulled volunteers to run the inner workings of the church-- the professional work-- and then felt compelled to do what that small group of people wanted to do instead of what might've been best for the health and growth of the congregation. Another church was highjacked by an individual who'd been around since the conception of the church and a lot of its traditions, and felt that he was placed there to make sure nothing changed.

Now, I'm not saying that change or lack of it is good or bad. It can be healthy, or it can be extremely divisive. However, if we're to be functioning congregations, we need to make decisions that effect the culture of a church as a group, not according to one individual-- or even a small group of them. Let's say someone's hindering progress in your spiritual home-- how do you deal with it?

1. Set professional parameters. A church is a funny structure-- even though it's a spiritual and deeply personal part of our lives, there is business to be done within it to make sure we are affirming and welcoming to anyone inside. Hijacking-- by anyone-- bogs down business with personal drama, and no one needs that. So, develop a Vision (generally, what do we want this church to be?), Programs (What specific... well, programs do you want?), Mission (Why do we want these things?), and a Covenant for group work (clear communication? Discuss [not argue] issues, not personalities? so on). Once you have these, stick to them-- they'll come in handy when you encounter bumps and hiccups, and remind you why you're inspired to do work in your church... even when the going gets tough.

2. Set personal standards. You had a plan with the vision and mission-- now determine how you're going to stick to them and communicate them. This is up to you, and you alone-- but just like other people shouldn't hold you to their standards, don't do it to other people. You know, the whole double standard thing stinks. Don't back down from your own.

2.a. Set personal standards, and know what you can handle. Please, please please please don't look at the phrase "know what you can handle" and see it as an endurance test. It's not. It's simply saying-- if you see a hijacking in your congregation, let the people who are directly involved handle the situation. If you're a congregant who enjoys listening to the music in the choir (but are not involved in the music program), and the pianist is threatening to resign, don't get involved. This is between the pianist, the music director, and the music director's supervisor. Getting involved and feeding information to anyone could make the situation worse since it doesn't promote direct, open and honest communication between the people involved.

3. Discuss within these boundaries-- but be civil about it. Being civil isn't being nice. It's communicating the message in a way that gets the point across without being hostile. Hostility's not only found in your words-- it's also found in the way you approach the matter. Handle it one on one, one person at a time-- any more would be seen as confrontational, and would bog down getting to the core of the issue. Stick to your standards for communicating, and don't get sucked into their plans, intentions, and emotionality. Hear what they're trying to say (the underlying message) instead of what they're saying. Be direct, and talk only with issues that directly effect them.

4. Worse comes to worst, don't be afraid to ask for neutral help. Let's say you've talked with the person who's holding a program or project hostage (you, of course, being directly effected by their decision, right?), and it's not a good discussion. Like, rock bottom, "Either you do this, or I take my program with me" not good. These things will happen. Don't panic, but do ask for help from a neutral party who can hear all sides of the story and figure out the best course of action. In some cases, the best course might actually be to allow this person to leave the position of influence. In other cases, a contract or agreement might be in line.

In short-- stick to your guns! There's a reason you do what you do, and there's a reason you want to be in community with those in your congregation. Don't let someone who takes control of a program determine the needs of your church-- work with them to make sure their needs are met as well, and that the progress of the church towards its vision isn't hindered.

Alright-- this blog is totally going from being a scheduled broadcast to an inspirational writing blog. I'm very much a mood writer, and the mood doesn't strike on schedule, you know. So, check back-- there should be at least one thing new posting here each week. All that said, we now return to our scheduled program for the evening: blog.
_______________________________________________

Thank God. Thank the heavens. I mean, there are many different reasons to do it, but this is a reason every music professional can relate to: a Sermon on Music Ministry. No, no, not a sermon on "Why music is important to us as UUs". Not a sermon on "Why we love music". Not even a sermon on "The Healing properties of music." While it touched all those topics, the pull-no-punches sermon-- "A River Runs through It", given by Frank Wells, Music Director of UU Clearwater-- was on what it takes to run a good, sound music ministry in the church-- and compensation of Church musicians as a Social Justice issue. He speaks on churches changing their paradigms from "What can we pay the musician this year?" to "What do we need to pay you, in order for there to be an equal exchange-- you can survive financially, and we can survive congregationally?"

Quite the interesting concept.
Where do I I find this? Well, I'm happy you asked. "A River Runs through it" was given at UU St. Petersburg(St. Petersburg, Florida) on August 12, 2007, and recorded for your consumption. Check it out here: UU St. Pete Recorded Sermons.

For even more information, the sources for the sermon, email Frank at Frank@BraveNew.Org. He'll be happy to give you more information.

The theme for the conference was "The Voice of Justice." These are words explaining the part musicians play in inspiring lasting change in the world. I've been asked to put my opening words and chalice lighting online, with some slight modification. Feel free to use them, but lemme know! It's always cool to know that my words are being used elsewhere.

In music-- there's something about the moods and tones and vibrations that keep us alive, keep us aware of breath and pulse and motion and change. We realize that there is a change in our moods and ourselves when we hear music, and when we make music—it changes us again and again; it changes other people. That change is why we're here together, not just for ourselves, but for the ripples that reach out into the world. There's no doubt that there's a lot wrong in our world—Racism, Classism, Sexism, Fundamentalism, Ablism… a world full of pain and oppressions. We've heard so many times that the state of things can't be changed, that it's always been this way. We've heard time and time again that nations are built on the back of the people. But if that's so, and people are changed by music, what happens if we sing a different song?

Sunday was my last day at the UU Musician's Network hosted in Clearwater. Five days of reconnecting and refining myself musically, and rediscovering parts of myself I've thought I'd lost. That's why these conferences are important to me-- I feel like they're the only place that who I am and what I do and how I do it is really understood.  Stepping into the real world after conferences is a little harsh.

I'm not saying people don't understand me. But, I know it's nearly impossible for them to see me the way I see myself, and to see my goals-- especially if I don't make it all that well known. But how much do I make known at what times?

My background: My father is a relaxed Roman Catholic, and my Bio-Mom (Sounds very "Terminator"... I mean to say, the one who gave birth to me) was a very strict Lutheran. Because she was a strict Lutheran, she went through all of the steps to make sure that I was an acceptable Lutheran, but I missed the part where I actually believed any of the theology. The Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the Apostle's Creed could be memorized, and I could attend church 2-3 times per week, but I didn't feel like moving my lips actually moved me to believe.   So I didn't.  The custody switch happened when I was 16 (I moved from my Mom's house in Virginia to my father's house in the Netherlands), and under my father and Anglican stepmother's roof I was allowed to examine different practices.  I read up on Buddhism and Paganism (mostly Wicca, because it was the easiest to access), read up on occultism and oxthodoxy and all of these things trying to figure out reasons they were (or not) acceptable.  None of them really completely satisfied me, but I liked bits and pieces of all of them.  I turned anti-organized religion.  I was introduced to Unitarian Universalism the Autumn break in October 2003, when my surrogate Grandmother (she "adopted" my dad when he was a kid) helped me to look at colleges, and took me for the Sunday service on being anti-animal cruelty.  It didn't hurt, of course, when I fell in love with a member of the church-- good people, good principles that embraced the very values that I believe in... what wasn't to love?  I came to Florida for college, the boy, and the faith and leadership opportunities, and have been Unitarian Universalist since.  I have explored Scientology, Buddhism, and Paganism by getting involved in the religious practices, but UU is my faith.

Now that you know where I come from, this is what I believe:

• I believe that there is no God.   I believe the prophets and saviors of the past and the world's religions are mortal teachers that were more in touch with themselves, the world and its workings than normal people and are guideposts for those who wish to lead moral lives-- as such, they should be respected, and none judged as wrong.
  
• I believe that there is no Karma or Sin or universal system of retribution.  If a person is inclined to do good, it should be done without the belief that it will not come back to them.  If wrongdoing is done, it should be with awareness that it hurts the situations of those the person and action is connected to.  Good things happen when people make them happen, and bad things just happen.  How you react to these things determines the type of person you are.
  
• I believe this is the only life we have.  I don't believe in an afterlife, or in heaven or hell beyond this:  heaven is when a person recognizes the moment's potential and acts accordingly, and hell is when a person does nothing.  The lessons that we learn we have to act on immediately, because there is no other time.  The relationships we have are sacred.
  
• I believe that everything is holy and has worth.  Everything.  no questions, no exceptions.  I believe that if people are treated without the respect they feel they deserve, we risk dehumanizing them and ourselves.
• I believe it is my responsibility to help people in life.  Whether it's advice, a listening ear, monetarily, or with my abilities, I'll do it.  By not helping or inspiring change, I am an agent of resistance.
  
• I believe there aren't any certain principles in life.  Everything is relative.  As such, the standards I hold for myself I can't hold others to, because they might not believe the same things I do.  That's okay.
  
• I believe in the healing power of Macaroni and Cheese.  It can make anything better.  Seriously.

Legislators vote to defeat same-sex marriage ban
(taken from Link: Boston.com's Breaking News)

Legislators vote to defeat same-sex marriage ban

By Frank Phillips, Globe Staff

A proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was defeated today by a joint session of the Legislature by a vote of 151 to 45, eliminating any chance of getting it on the ballot in November 2008. The measure needed at least 50 votes to advance.

The vote came after House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, Senate President Therese Murray, and Governor Deval Patrick conferred this morning and concluded that they have the votes to kill the proposal. Cheers echoed in the State House when the vote was tallied.

"In Massachusetts today, the freedom to marry is secure," Patrick told reporters after the results were official.

The three leaders - along with gay rights activists - spent the last several days intensely lobbying a dozen or more state representatives and state senators who had previously supported the amendment but signaled that they were open to changing their positions.

Because fewer than 50 of the state's 200 lawmakers supported the amendment, it will not appear on the 2008 ballot, giving gay marriage advocates a major victory in their battle with social conservatives to keep same-sex marriage legal in Massachusetts.

Opponents of gay marriage face an increasingly tough battle to win legislative approval of any future petitions to appear on a statewide ballot. The next election available to them is 2012.

The Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the group that spearheaded the court case that led to the Supreme Judicial Court's 2003 decision to legalize same-sex marriage, issued a statement praising the vote.

"We’re proud of our state today, and we applaud the legislature for showing that Massachusetts is strongly behind fairness," said Lee Swislow, executive director Advocates & Defenders. "The vote today was the triumph of time, experience, and understanding over fear and prejudice."

Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute that backed the amendment, pledged to continue fighting, but wouldn't commit to presenting another proposed amendment.

"I don't believe it's dead because the people have not had the opportunity to have their vote," Mineau told the Associated Press. "This will not go away until the citizens have their opportunity to decide what the definition of marriage is."

The proposal needed the votes of 50 legislators in two consecutive sessions to make it on the 2008 ballot as a referendum. In January, the measure passed its first convention with 62 votes, but it fell short today by 5 votes.

Joyce Durst, an opponent of same-sex marriage from Mattapan, had come the State House today to pray that the measure passed. When the amendment failed, she pulled a crumpled tissue from her pocket and began to sob.

"I'm sick," said Durst, 60. "I'm sick."

Claire Alloy-Relihan, 22, from Newton, had the opposite reaction. "I could not be happier right now," she said.

Globe Correspondent April Yee contributed to this report.
Posted by the Boston Globe City & Region Desk at 01:23 PM

latest composition bits.

... I am typing this blog. And I, dear readers, am pooped. Lots has been happening that I haven't made you aware of-- with my job, with my personal (or as personal as it can get) life, and with the world in general-- but tonight, I type with news of Florida's Annual District Assembly.

Clearwater is located on Tampa Bay, and is pretty much halfway down the state-- with the central location, 150 Florida District UUs have managed to make it down for the weekend-long retreat, during which we look for ways to be more connected and communicative with each other.

I'm here mostly to fill my positions as Florida District Young Adult representative, Helping Choir Mistress for the joint choir, and Member of the Leadership Council. But, even with all these roles, I look at the workshops planned for Saturday and want to know more, and do more, and be more for my district. We'll see how much they'll let me bounce around tomorrow between workshops. I'll update you more on

...

An observation, kind readers--
While the boyfriend and the roommates are in the clubbing district of Tampa playing games and partying it up, I have (perhaps unwisely, some of you might think) opted to come to the Assembly and stay in the hotel-- it's now past midnight, and I get to wakeup at five in the morning to pack and catch a taxi for a 7:00 am meeting, and then worship at 8am-- and then, and then, and then. But you know? I wouldn't have it any other way (well, except for waking up at 5:00. That, I could live without.) I think this makes me strange.

So, I've been guilty of this on more than one occasion, but after this past week of craziness (I'll write more about it later), enough's enough. Let me just say this to anyone who participates with other congregations:

If you're taking part in a joint venture (Choir Festival, Area worship and workshops, anything like these), DO NOT put the joint activities off until the last minute, and think that the other participants are going to be able to carry you through the entire event. While there might be a good chances of it, the only way of making sure you make it through an event is by preparing everything on your own, to the fullest extent possible.

Secondary to making sure you've got your ducks in a row, is making sure that other people have theirs. If you've had any difficulties with something (let's say the music), check with the other people in charge, and see if they've had the same troubles. Worse comes to worse, you have people who've communicated well and can work to solve a mutual problem.

Download file

It's always interesting when you talk to a whole bunch of UUs about God. Or Spirit. Or really, anything that has to do with stereotypical evangelistic Christianity-- a background that a lot of our congregants left to join UU.

For Martin Luther King Sunday, my choir was asked to prepare some spirituals and some good moving songs that honor the spiritual practises of Martin Luther King, Jr. I explained to my choir the frustration I have with Martin Luther King's Day: that even though we've taken the steps to abolish both institutional segregation of ethnicities and slavery, the interpersonal segregation--of people who are a different color of skin, or who are differently abled, or of differing sexual orientations-- or the slavery of people who don't have the opportunity to escape lower or middle class lifestyles because of financial situations.... even though we've taken these steps to improve institutional equality, there is much work still to be done until we can even consider all people even close to equal. It's frustrating.

We pulled out the hymns and the choir piece for this Sunday, and had some light fun with them. We dissected the parts (something the congregation doesn't do for hymns... but it's always cool to hear, so I like to have the choir do it) for the hymns, and then pulled out Singing the Journey #1024: When the Spirit Says Do.

You got to do when the spirit says Do*, You got to do when the spirit says Do, When the spirit says Do, you got to Do, Oh, Lord! You got to Do when the spirit says DO!

The asterisk has a note. Note: replace "do" with other words: sing, dance, laugh, shout, etc. The choir asks about the verses for the piece, and what I'd like to sing. I dictate: "First verse, we sing 'do'. Second Verse, we sing 'sing'. Third verse, we sing 'Preach', and fourth verse, we recap with 'do'. Everyone Cool?" I looked up from my music to some uncomfortable, in-the-seat shifting. "Oh, good gravy," I thought. "It's gonna be the freaking 'Lord' thing, again."

I asked, "Guys, really, what's up?" One of my basses responded with hesitated air, "Preach isn't one of the words in the hymn."

"Right," I said, really relieved I didn't have to stop on the GodBox again, "but it's a verb, and it fits perfectly."

"How do you figure?"

I knew it was soapbox time. A lot of people don't realise it, but yes, Music Directors do get a chance to take a stand, form an opinion, and voice it. Whether or not they take that chance is up to them-- but me, I figure I should get into the habit now. This is my stance.

Preaching is not something a lot of UUs are comfortable with, and it's because of the background many of us come from-- where, to preach is to dictate the absolute and only correct belief in the world. That dogma, and any words or behaviors that are associated with that dogma are things that we love to reject in the spirit of our "different" religion. But the true sense of the word, without all the connotations, means to advocate with enthusiasm. I think, that we can all agree that inherent worth and dignity of each and every person, and a free and responsible search for an individual's own Truth and Meaning are worthwhile things to advocate. I also think that most of us want to see Unitarian Universalism grow, and the works done in accordance to our principals grow. But how can we grow if we don't get out there and advocate them, if we don't burn about something, if we don't, in turn, preach?
I can understand any discomfort surrounding this word-- "Preach"-- and if you'd like to talk with me about it after choir rehearsal, please, please do.

Nobody complained-- in fact, from that point, they had a certain gained affinity and appreciation for the piece. While sometimes I aim to press little buttons here and there-- I tend to do foreign songs that directly translated have 'God' in them, expecting the choir to ask if they have to sing God (I respond that if they can directly and accurately translate their words into Zulu/Swahili, we might do it...)-- there are certain buttons that are landmines moreso than buttons: they're unplanned for, and when you land on one, you know it. Sometimes landing on one makes you think quickly and instinctually about where you stand in faith.