Another Ministry (or two) Falls to Raycism - Part 3

[Continued from HERE]

In the last part we examined the questions raised by Reeve Tyndall's objections to the ministries of Rev. Susan Newman Moore and Rev. Rob Hardies. And it doesn't really matter if Reeve Tyndall is a church antagonist, the United Church of Christ (UCC) found something in his complaints that warranted a fitness review of Rev. Moore's ministry.

Despite all of the bullshit concerns regarding Rev. Moore's and Rev. Hardies' ministries, there was something there. I call bullshit concerns Mr. Tyndall's issues with sabbatical, vacation leave etc. And the reason is, this was something negotiated between the ministers and the congregation. All of this happened before either minister was called. Before a congregational vote calling either minister to the church, this was negotiated, the congregation had to know all about it, they voted on it. So, Mr. Tyndall's issues with sabbatical and vacation leave go directly against the congregation's wishes.

Mr. Tyndall seems to have an issue with congregational polity. When an individual has an issue with a policy, salary, or anything else voted on by the congregation then they have an issue with congregational polity, and ultimately with the congregation itself.

That's why both the Board of Trustees and the UUA's response may have been dismissive. Reality is many congregants who appear antagonistic toward their minister(s) simply do not understand congregational polity: they think it means "I get what I want," not the reality of the situation which is that the congregation as a whole gets what they want. There is a huge difference between what "I" want versus what "WE" want. A congregant who doesn't understand this is either too stupid to get it, or has too much of an agenda to get it. (There's not a lot of middle ground here.)

In this regard Mr. Tyndall is completely wrong. The truth is both Rev. Hardies and Rev. Moore may be shit ministers, however, going against congregational polity won't get anything done, except piss off the congregation while simultaneously displaying one's stupidity, or belligerence, or both.

Now, congregational polity issues aside, when a congregant complains about legitimate issues such as not being able to keep pastoral confidences, or plagiarism, then an investigation needs to happen.

Here's where we get into a sticky situation: legitimate complaints aren't always dealt with. There are many reasons for this, the most prominent being the popularity of the minister at the UUA. Not kidding. It's all "congregational polity" from the UUA whenever they don't want to get involved, but a minister unpopular with the UUA's hierarchy will get the UUA involved almost immediately. [There will be a whole other piece on this, as this issue is massive.]

I imagine that issues of betraying confidences coupled with plagiarism would get the attention of the UUA, or the Board of Trustees.

But it didn't. Why?

It was neither the Board of Trustees, nor the UUA, who instigated any sort of ministerial review, but the UCC. Why?

Could it indeed be raycism? Could the UUA, and or the Board, ignore some serious issues of ministerial misconduct because of race? In this situation I do not know. However, in past situations the UUA has certainly seemed to act this way.

Remember this?

[ORIGINAL HERE]

Maybe, and this is pure speculation, the UUA has a different standard for the ministries of people of color. I don't know. It sure seems that way, though. We make a huge deal over Rev. Moore's ministerial troubles, but say nothing of the heap of shit that Rev. Hardies is facing. But that's okay, Rev. Hardies has White Privilege. The whole thing is raycist as fuck on the UUA's part.

If they ignored ministerial misconduct (for any reason,) the UUA's (in)actions could put the congregation at risk. If this is the case, then I would encourage the Board of Trustees of All Souls DC to consult with an attorney. [NOTE: I am NOT a lawyer, I am not giving legal advice that I have no qualification to give. I am suggesting that they seriously consider consulting with an attorney of their own choosing to examine the legalities of all of this.] Something smells real stinky here.

This examination of congregational polity and the UUA's blatant (to everyone but themselves) raycism has gotten a little long. Next time we'll look at Rev. Moore's ministry and actions.

Your Ol' Pal,
Devilhead

[Continued...HERE]

Another Ministry (or two) Falls to Raycism - Part 2

[Continued from HERE.]

Given that this is a public case, in fact it's Washington Post public, let's look at All Souls, DC and see what's going on. This is a Gordian knot. Efforts to untie it by those better qualified than I am have largely failed and the failure is painted with raycism. Where to begin?

Given that this is a Washington Post article, their version of events is a good place to begin. [LINK HERE.]

Upon reading the article, it becomes very clear that there is a slant to the story that may, or may not, be real. The story is entirely about how raycism effected one black woman's ministry. Raycism is mentioned in nearly every paragraph, so clearly there's an agenda. A narrative needs to be fed... but is it the truth?

Buried in the middle of the article, is this:

And with one fell swoop of the sword the Gordian knot is split open and in the center is this: a dissatisfied congregant in the eye of the storm.

There it is, it's right fucking there. Yet, it seems to be what nobody is really talking about. Why is that? Does it not fit the narrative? Is truth inconvenient to the narrative? (If that's so, does that then make the narrative a work of abject fiction?) My guess is that the future will reveal the past. It usually does.

So, at this tootsie pop's gooey middle is the reality of an angry/upset/disappointed/antagonistic/take-your-pick congregant who felt the urge to make his needs known a) to church officials b) to the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUMA too?), c) to the United Church of Christ [UCC], and the gods only know where else.

We do know he was upset enough to send several letters all over the place to anyone who would listen. And we do know that in September 2017, the UCC found something in one of his letters troubling enough to investigate Rev. Moore's ministry.

This is from the All Souls DC board of trustees to the congregation [LINK HERE]:

[ORIGINAL HERE]

[ORIGINAL HERE]

The Washington Post article and this missive from the All Souls DC board of trustees, begins to paint a picture. A congregant unidentified in the UCC process although identified by the Washington Post, lodged a complaint that the UCC deemed needed to be investigated.

The process was a confidential one. Other than the process itself being laid out and made clear to the congregation, there was to be no discussion of the specifics by any party: the UUC fitness review team, the All Souls board, and Rev. Moore herself. (This will turn out to be important later.)

But... let's get back to the complaint. We know from the Washington Post story, that Reeve Tyndall sent numerous letters to the church (one presumes the board of All Souls DC), to the UUA and to the UCC. In the cases of the trustees and the UUA, complaints were raised against Rev. Moore and Rev. Hardies, not Rev. Moore alone.

By all accounts Reeve Tyndall was one unhappy individual.

This whole thing leaves Devilhead with more questions than answers:

The UCC responded by beginning a Fitness Review of Rev. Moore's ministry. What of the letter(s) received by the All Souls DC board of trustees? What of the letter(s) received by the UUA?

Were there no red flags in any of the letters sent to the board of trustees or the UUA? None? Did the All Souls DC board of trustees act with due diligence? Did the UUA?

And what of the complaints themselves? Were these genuine issues? Or, were they spurious? If genuine then why did not the UUA or board of trustees institute some form of ministry review? If spurious, was enough noise made to shine light on Rev. Moore's ministry and genuine problems surfaced?

We can't go into whether Reeve Tyndall was acting with good intentions and pointing out glaring injustice, or whether he simply had personal issues played out on the larger stage of ministry. Both are possibilities, and this may not be an either/or situaition, but a both/and. He could be both upset at genuine stuff he's experienced and be someone with personal issues. They are not mutually exclusive. This is true of the UUA and All Souls DC's board as well.

In any case, the UCC saw something in his complaint that went beyond mere complaining.

Why didn't the UUA?

Why didn't the All Souls DC board?

In the case of the UUA there is a long tradition of turning a blind eye when one is dealing with favored sons and daughters. For a long time the ministerial flavor du jour was the white gay male minister. Currently it's anyone of color. Could either of these factors have led to a blind eye being cast upon the numerous complaints?

Or, is it possible that angry congregants acting antagonistically towards their ministers is so much the norm that it doesn't even rate a raised eyebrow? What if I told you that in 99 44/100% of Unitarian Universalist congregations there is at least one person working tirelessly to get rid of their minister by any means necessary? What if I told you that this is so completely normal that it doesn't get much traction, at all?

Let's continue down the rabbit hole...

[Continued...HERE]