Dysfunctional U*U Congregations Often Call "Less Than Excellent" Dysfunctional U*U Ministers
And, in doing so, "compound their problems."
But don't take my word for it U*Us.
Take Rev. Christine Robinson's word for it. . .
"And Robin is also correct that it is sometimes the case. . . perhaps even often the case. . . that dysfunctional congregations often call dysfunctional ministers and compound their problems. This is one of many issues that is difficult to manage in congregational polity. In our system, the congregation is ultimately in charge of its affairs, functional or dysfunctional."
Here is my response to Rev. Robinson's affirmative *validating* response to my comment suggesting that:
"*some* toxic/dysfunctional U*U congregations seem to be quite happy to call similarly toxic/dysfunctional ministers. A real U*U World example of that dynamic would be a U*U congregation dominated by intolerant dogmatic atheists s*electing an intolerant dogmatic atheist as its minister but not doubt there are other examples."
As usual I am adding some additional hyperlinks to supporting evidence in the form of pertinent blog posts and Google searches so that U*Us, or anyone else for that matter. . . can engage in a free, and hopefully genuinely responsible, search for the truth and meaning of what Rev. Christine Robinson and I are both affirming about dysfunctional U*U Unwelcoming Congregations and dysfunctional U*U ministers -
It is true that as a result of congregational polity each U*U congregation is ultimately in charge of its own affairs, functional or dysfunctional. AFAIAC Congregational polity is a serious weakness and detriment when it comes to responsibly dealing with toxic/dysfunctional congregations that give The U*U Movement™ a bad name. How does the UUA *real* in toxic/dysfunctional U*U congregations? In my own direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder known as U*Uism it simply doesn't do anything at all. . . The UUA may even effectively encourage and enable some forms of toxic/dysfunctional behavior on the part of its congregations and ministers if my own bitter experience with the UUA is any indication.
The fact of the matter is that the UUA *is* still ultimately responsible for holding toxic/dysfunctional U*U clergy accountable for their harmful words and actions and it stands to good old Unitarian Reason* that such "less than excellent" U*U ministers are likely to have at least one or two clergy misconduct complaints brought against them during their careers. *If* the UUA and MFC, to say nothing of the UUMA, did a better job of responsibly holding toxic/dysfunctional U*U clergy accountable for their harmful and damaging words and actions when a misconduct complaint is brought against them such action *could* indirectly help to correct and heal the toxic/dysfunctional U*U churches that they serve.
Even when a congregation itself is not all that toxic and/or dysfunctional to begin with, U*U congregations that back toxic/dysfunctional U*U ministers to the hilt when a clergy misconduct complaint is brought against their minister can and do quickly become toxic/dysfunctional as a result of failing to responsibly redress the complaint, as well as ostracizing or otherwise demonizing and marginalizing the people who brought the complaint against the minister. Such unproductive behavior seems to be a very common "social dynamic" in cases of clergy misconduct, regardless of the religion or denomination involved. Regrettably Unitarian*Universalists are not above engaging in such complicit and collusive DIM Thinking, which denies, ignores, and minimizes the victim's grievances. In fact clergy misconduct victims are often subjected to various forms of victim blaming and otherwise demonized and marginalized by implicated congregations, thus only aggravating and escalating the original injustices and abuses perpetrated by the toxic/dysfunctional clergy person.
In my own well documented "bad experience" with what I have reasonable grounds to believe is a rather dysfunctional U*U congregation, if not a toxic one, as well as a few toxic and dysfunctional U*U ministers who clearly have some "issues", indeed at least one of them has a diagnosed mental illness, UUA and MFC "oversight" of "less than excellent" U*U ministers means irresponsibly *overlooking* aka disregarding their toxic and/or dysfunctional behavior when it is brought to the attention of the UUA and MFC. I have the UUA and MFC "records" which document this fact and, as per Rev. David O. Rankin's apparently "obsolete" little red UUA tract 'What We Believe', they are publicly "open to scrutiny" by U*Us who *care* to know how the UUA and MFC responded to my clergy misconduct complaints against two of these toxic and dysfunctional U*U ministers. Yes, there are a few others who I have not bothered to file complaints against yet, having little or no confidence that the UUA and MFC are ready, willing, and able to responsibly handle non-sexual clergy misconduct complaints about toxic U*U clergy who insult and defame people, or otherwise verbally abuse people, in a manner that actually honors and upholds the Seven Principles of Unitarian*Universalism.
In short, if the UUA and MFC did a better job of responsibly holding "less than excellent" U*U ministers accountable for their toxic and dysfunctional words and actions when clergy misconduct complaints are brought against them, and provided some genuine restorative justice to the victims of ALL forms of clergy misconduct, there might be fewer toxic and/or dysfunctional Unwelcoming Congregations in the U*U World. . .
* Capital 'R' Reason aka rationality that seems to be sorely lacking in the U*U World these days. . .
But don't take my word for it U*Us.
Take Rev. Christine Robinson's word for it. . .
"And Robin is also correct that it is sometimes the case. . . perhaps even often the case. . . that dysfunctional congregations often call dysfunctional ministers and compound their problems. This is one of many issues that is difficult to manage in congregational polity. In our system, the congregation is ultimately in charge of its affairs, functional or dysfunctional."
Here is my response to Rev. Robinson's affirmative *validating* response to my comment suggesting that:
"*some* toxic/dysfunctional U*U congregations seem to be quite happy to call similarly toxic/dysfunctional ministers. A real U*U World example of that dynamic would be a U*U congregation dominated by intolerant dogmatic atheists s*electing an intolerant dogmatic atheist as its minister but not doubt there are other examples."
As usual I am adding some additional hyperlinks to supporting evidence in the form of pertinent blog posts and Google searches so that U*Us, or anyone else for that matter. . . can engage in a free, and hopefully genuinely responsible, search for the truth and meaning of what Rev. Christine Robinson and I are both affirming about dysfunctional U*U Unwelcoming Congregations and dysfunctional U*U ministers -
It is true that as a result of congregational polity each U*U congregation is ultimately in charge of its own affairs, functional or dysfunctional. AFAIAC Congregational polity is a serious weakness and detriment when it comes to responsibly dealing with toxic/dysfunctional congregations that give The U*U Movement™ a bad name. How does the UUA *real* in toxic/dysfunctional U*U congregations? In my own direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder known as U*Uism it simply doesn't do anything at all. . . The UUA may even effectively encourage and enable some forms of toxic/dysfunctional behavior on the part of its congregations and ministers if my own bitter experience with the UUA is any indication.
The fact of the matter is that the UUA *is* still ultimately responsible for holding toxic/dysfunctional U*U clergy accountable for their harmful words and actions and it stands to good old Unitarian Reason* that such "less than excellent" U*U ministers are likely to have at least one or two clergy misconduct complaints brought against them during their careers. *If* the UUA and MFC, to say nothing of the UUMA, did a better job of responsibly holding toxic/dysfunctional U*U clergy accountable for their harmful and damaging words and actions when a misconduct complaint is brought against them such action *could* indirectly help to correct and heal the toxic/dysfunctional U*U churches that they serve.
Even when a congregation itself is not all that toxic and/or dysfunctional to begin with, U*U congregations that back toxic/dysfunctional U*U ministers to the hilt when a clergy misconduct complaint is brought against their minister can and do quickly become toxic/dysfunctional as a result of failing to responsibly redress the complaint, as well as ostracizing or otherwise demonizing and marginalizing the people who brought the complaint against the minister. Such unproductive behavior seems to be a very common "social dynamic" in cases of clergy misconduct, regardless of the religion or denomination involved. Regrettably Unitarian*Universalists are not above engaging in such complicit and collusive DIM Thinking, which denies, ignores, and minimizes the victim's grievances. In fact clergy misconduct victims are often subjected to various forms of victim blaming and otherwise demonized and marginalized by implicated congregations, thus only aggravating and escalating the original injustices and abuses perpetrated by the toxic/dysfunctional clergy person.
In my own well documented "bad experience" with what I have reasonable grounds to believe is a rather dysfunctional U*U congregation, if not a toxic one, as well as a few toxic and dysfunctional U*U ministers who clearly have some "issues", indeed at least one of them has a diagnosed mental illness, UUA and MFC "oversight" of "less than excellent" U*U ministers means irresponsibly *overlooking* aka disregarding their toxic and/or dysfunctional behavior when it is brought to the attention of the UUA and MFC. I have the UUA and MFC "records" which document this fact and, as per Rev. David O. Rankin's apparently "obsolete" little red UUA tract 'What We Believe', they are publicly "open to scrutiny" by U*Us who *care* to know how the UUA and MFC responded to my clergy misconduct complaints against two of these toxic and dysfunctional U*U ministers. Yes, there are a few others who I have not bothered to file complaints against yet, having little or no confidence that the UUA and MFC are ready, willing, and able to responsibly handle non-sexual clergy misconduct complaints about toxic U*U clergy who insult and defame people, or otherwise verbally abuse people, in a manner that actually honors and upholds the Seven Principles of Unitarian*Universalism.
In short, if the UUA and MFC did a better job of responsibly holding "less than excellent" U*U ministers accountable for their toxic and dysfunctional words and actions when clergy misconduct complaints are brought against them, and provided some genuine restorative justice to the victims of ALL forms of clergy misconduct, there might be fewer toxic and/or dysfunctional Unwelcoming Congregations in the U*U World. . .
* Capital 'R' Reason aka rationality that seems to be sorely lacking in the U*U World these days. . .
Comments