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]
No comments:
Post a Comment