Eliz Curtis on credentialing

This is a guest post from Eliz Curtis. She blogs at Politywonk

My political science undergraduate training emphasized what was called

"small group dynamics" and "group think" as a pitfall in decision-making.

Small self-contained groups tend to make decisions based not on discreet

sets of facts, but on the needs and dynamics of their ongoing

relationship. Each player comes in with larger goals and continuencies;

they need these other folks on board to serve those objectives. In

military parlance, this is the difference between "tactical" thinking --

short-term, here-and-now goals -- versus "strategic" -- how does this fit

into the larger objective. We who see the MFC do not want to be cannon

fodder for the larger visions of ministry each committee member brings,

but that can be what happens.

It does not mean any MFC member is to blame. It means they spend tons of

time fashioning their larger visions, rather than listening to specific

congregations.

Purists among our historians point out that during the heyday of

congregational authority, ordination applied only to the congregation

which bestowed it. There was no such thing as a pure ministerial gift: it

was all relational.

What I like about the pulpit rotation system and learned ministry is that

it formed an early attempt at bicaleralism.

For the record, I STILL support this kind of bicameralism. RSS's would be

more accountable not only spend time with the aspirant, but also to visit

their home congregation for story-telling. There would still be a central

MFC, with powers of arbitration, appeal and review when the local

processes get stuck on particular cases.

All records, being essentially employment records, would be public and

publicly available.

Elz Curtiss

Burlington, Vermont

Yet More Voices on the Cost of Seminary

Can be found here (The Rev. Ron Robinson, no relation) and here. (The Rev. Scott Wells)

Other Voices on Ministerial Credentialing

My colleague Margret O'Neall, interim minister of the UU church in Sarasota, Florida, lately wrote this to her colleagues, and gave me permission to reproduce it here.

I give a lot of thought to our MFC processes, having seen the committee within the past year, and comparing it both to other professional credentialing systems, and to the process one of my colleagues in the UCC is going through (their "in-care" system). I believe that a more relational and grounded process could, if thoughtfully cultivated, be more consistent with our theological and philosophical understandings and commitments, and contribute more fully to the process of formation.

In my own case, both the idea and the actual experience of being examined by a board of strangers, who knew me only from paper and a brief personal exposure under extremely stressful conditions, felt disrespectful of my ministry and inadequate as a pass-fail system of judgment on my preparation for professional engagement with a congregation or community. No matter how they tried to be both objective and relational, those who sat in judgment over me did not know me, some clearly had their own agendas, and had a lot of power over my future.

Much of my career prior to ministry has been invested in community and academic systems. I find that our current process of admitting ministers into fellowship picks up some of the worst faults in a range of systems, and would do well to be re-thought systematically and with a stronger grounding in congregational, seminary and ministerial mentoring relationships. Some good things are clearly happening -- strengthening RSCC's, mentored praxis in seminaries, the Mountain Desert District's "Living Into Covenant" initiative. Perhaps it will trickle up to the MFC, but trickles do not usually run in that direction unless there is a pump involved.

Margret O'Neall

THe problem with debt reduction

Actually, I'm all for helping working ministers reduce the monumental debt of their educational expenses. However, this approach has several significant down sides.

1. First of all it is excessively hard on the people who discover in their seminary career, or who are told by the RSCC or MFC that they just don't meet the grade or who don't, for whatever reason get a job, to have amassed huge debt. It encourages...perhaps even requires...people to persevere who are not good candidates or who really don' t like the work. And I sometimes catch undercurrents of the possibility that seminaries and credentialing bodies feel inhibited from helping boarderline candidates out of the ministry track because they are aware of the financial burden they have taken on.

2. Secondly, it is excessively discouraging to prudent people who really look at the bottom line when they are considering ministry as a career. The Ministerial Bottom Line is already more than a little intimidating in our denomination; adding Seminary debt to that bottom line is a real financial deal-breaker. And while we might want to respond that ministry has to be a heart-felt and strong call, devoid of details like financial reality, do we really want our ministry to be completely made up of persons who are either independently wealthy, supported by a spouse, or are inclined to throw caution to the wind when it comes to financial matters? We don't.

3. Thirdly, debt reduction reduces the incentive for students to work during their formation years. I learned more about being a minister from managing a dorm during my seminary years than I did from my internship (at which I learned a lot...a bow to my internship supervisor, Randy Becker.) There is nothing like being the only occupant of the room where the buck stops to require learning! I learned a great deal from field work, especially at the First Parish of Belmont, MA (another bow, to them and to Marjory Montgomery, then their minister). I could do all of this in part because I was free of family obligations, but I was also encouraged by a Methodist seminary to do them, and I got credit for them. There were fewer course requirements for the MFC in those days. No one would have dreamed of asking how many districts the UUA had at an MFC interview. Believe it or not, there were no study groups for the MFC bound. We had to understand congregational polity and UU history in general, not in specifics.

The overall social issue of student debt is massive in our nation and it is no small part of our national ills. Massive Young Adult Debt reduces choices, creativity, and social responsibility. Massive New Minister Debt does the same thing. We need a better way.

The cost of Ministerial Formation III

One more thought on this topic...

Another think I think we should seriously explore.

Given the fact that it is hard to know who is going to succeed in ministry until they succeed, I would suggest that the major "gatekeeping" function be, not at preliminary fellowship, but at Final Fellowship. At that point, the record of a new minister's ministry can speak for itself. Most will have clearly succeeded or failed and will not even need to be interviewed, which is no small expense for candidates or for the UUA. (The interviewing will have been done by one or more search committees who actually spend a lot more time with candidates than the MFC and whose judgment, in congregational polity, should be respected.) The requirements for Preliminary Fellowship might simply be the passing of RSCC, background check, and careful scrutiny of documents, not for "ministerial presence" (which only appropriately develops in ministry, after all) or preaching ability (congregations can be trusted to judge for themselves whether they want to hear this person) but for psychological health and a healthy attitude towards ministerial leadership.

Persons in preliminary Fellowship would be provisionally ordained and it would be suggested to congregations that they be hired for a three year term, with the possibility of a call extended after Final Fellowship is granted.

The advantage of this is that almost everyone would search for a church in their senior year of seminary and begin to work the next Fall, and when they were judged, they would be judged on their record, and that would, for most people be much less anxiety-producing. Lots of things to think through, of course, but I think this approach (more like what the Methodists do) is worth thinking about.

The cost of Ministerial Formation II

Part two of a conversation about how we might reduce the cost of ministerial education.

Another part of the cost of ministry is the cost of moving somewhere for 9 months to do an internship. This model is nice for the unattached 20-something but it doesn't work well for older ministers or those with families. I have had several applications from interns who proposed to leave small children with their working spouse for nine months in order to come to New Mexico and do their internship. The family finances required that. This is not a good situation at all.

Let's re-think that one-size-fits-all ministerial formation model. How about the possibility of 3-5 year supervised residencies, or allowing interns to take a job in the church they have interned in, or even intern in their home church? While there are reasons all of those are disallowed or frowned on, our frowns may just be too darned expensive in the current climate.

The Cost of Ministerial Formation

There is growing concern in our denomination about the cost of ministerial formation these days, which is up vastly from 30 years ago. (I ended my seminary career $300 in debt, having worked my way through as a dorm manager. This was unusually low even then, but today, it is not unusual for new ministers to have $50,000 debt. This is causing all kinds of obvious and subtle consequences and so...folks are talking. Here's my part of one such conversation.

Here is one thought I have about reducing the cost of ministerial education.

Make it possible for most candidates to complete their preparation for this career in three years, inclusive of CPE, internship, reading list, MFC interview, and job hunting process. That's the way it used to be. Most candidates are taking four, five, or more years these days. Even if they are only paying three years of tuition, they are taking several more to complete their requirements...a lot more time than it used to be, because the requirements have gone up and the anxiety and timing detail of RSCC and MFC interviews has skyrocketed. I have not noticed a corresponding increase in the quality of our ministry in the past generation. I am sure all the new requirements and processes were good ideas, but the total preparation required has gotten out of hand. You can be a physician in the time it takes to be a minister.

I grieve for the many people of modest means who will not be able to afford to prepare for our ministry, and I grieve for what we are missing from them. I also worry that our current situation fills our ministry with people who are so sure of their call from the very beginning, or so heedless of the financial risks that they are taking that they will do this...leading to a ministry devoid of the more humble, frugal, and cautious persons who would also serve us well.

The REAL doctrine behind Pro-Life

The Catholic church has focused, wisely, on "pro-life" as the doctrine that it brings to bear in public when defending restrictions and bans on abortion. Not only does this ring well with us all...who, after all, is "for death?" but it hides a much more fundamental Catholic belief which argues against abortion rights but which, when brought to the light of day, is not widely shared by anyone, including rank and file catholics.

Let's first dispense with "pro-life". To its credit, the Catholic church has attempted in these past decades to enlarge this stance beyond abortion. They Catholic church stands against capitol punishment, for instance, and against assisted suicide as a part of its pro-life stand. Gotta give them credit for attempting consistancy.

However, official Catholic doctrine still has a just war theory, and just war theory says that, if someone is seriously endangering your nation or threatening the freedom of its inhabitants, war with all its killing is justified. The nation at war must have tried all other routes to solve the problem and must attempt to avoid killing non-combatants, but there is a place in Catholic doctrine where, when fundamental human freedom clashes with life, freedom wins.

Well, I have to say, that I know of no more fundamental clash between freedom and life than that which takes place within and around every unwillingly pregnant woman, who is giving up huge chunks of her freedom for the sake of the life of another...for nine months if she can bear to give away the baby for adoption, and for at least 18 years if she can't. The fact that this is never discussed points to the fact that there's something else going on in our minds and hearts,

And it is.

The REAL doctrine underlying abortion restriction is the (old but still powerful) doctrine that sex is for procreation. Since you should never have sex unless you want to have a baby, then if you do have sex and get pregnant, you should accept the consequences.

The newer version of this doctrine is that every act of sex should be open to the possibility of creating new life, which, in a culture in which we don't need any more babies and in which every baby is a significant burden as well as a joy, amounts in practice to the same thing. Shall we have sex tonight, honey? Well...maybe not.

These are the doctrines that lie behind the church's prohibition of artificial means of birth control, which most Catholics and others don't support. But they are unconsciously powerful.

Look, for instance at the fact that, besides an exception if her life is in danger, the most common exception in anti-abortion legislation is the exception in cases of rape and incest. Why those exceptions? Because in that case, the woman didn't choose to have sex and shouldn't be expected to take the consequences.

Now I myself believe that it sex is a part of human life for far more than creating babies. Evolution made sex such fun because it's necessary to keep families together over the long haul of the lives of children and grandchildren, who benefit immensely from intact families and care from multi-generations of relatives.

If sex has two legitimate purposes, it is likely that those purposes will sometimes conflict and that conflict has to be managed. Unwillingly pregnant women are not bad people who were doing something illicit and have to take the consequences. Unwillingly pregnant women are bearing the consequences of evolution's duel purposes for sexuality and need assistance.

Or, we could all agree that sex is for procreation and we should only be doing it a few times in our lives. That, too, would solve the abortion problem.

The Crux of Abortion

This quarter's UU World contains this article about abortion by my colleague, Scotty McLennan. It's a well researched article about Christian (and Jewish) positions about when human life begins over the centuries. Abortion rights folks, so often battered by people with their Bibles, do love to see that the biblical and religious view is not as clear cut as conservatives think it is. But UU's don't tend to look to the Bible for advice about specific moral issues, so the article is at best, preaching to the converted and at worst, doing more harm than good to the pro-choice cause by belaboring the wrong point.

UU's look to science for clues to what is right and wrong, and science no longer looks for "breath" to determine the presence of life. It looks to brain waves, heart beats, and genetic science. This has been very problematic for abortion rights. There's no doubt about it...any layperson can see genetically human life squirming around in every fetal ultrasound. If we want to support abortion rights, it just won't do to travel old paths of biblical argument or parse out the ancient meanings of "person". If we want to support abortion rights in the modern world, we have to be able to clearly say why a woman who is unwillingly pregnant, or who is carrying a fetus whose life will be painful, short, or terribly compromised has the legal and usually the moral right to terminate her (early and middle) pregnancy.

Here it is in a nutshell. The western political and religious tradition values human life supremely, and we usually value human freedom even more. "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time" said Thomas Jefferson, and there's the even starker, "Give me liberty or give me death." These two values often conflict, as in, the freedom to make money and vs. need for regulation to protect public health. In these conflicts of values, "freedom" is often the winner, as in, "If you come from a country that is threatening the freedoms of my county, I will kill you."

Thus it is that Rev. McLennan, a man, will never be forced by law to give up so much of a drop of his own blood to save the life, even of his own newborn child, as that would infringe on such a basic freedom, the freedom of bodily self-determination. He'd be asked, perhaps expected, to make this easy donation from love or duty, but he will never be forced to do it. His freedom is naturally valued, by everyone and by the law, as more important than the life of another human being, even one he is responsible for having brought into the world. Of course we might condemn him morally for his selfishness, but the law will never compel him to give any part of his body to his child.

So iMinister, a woman, thinks it's pretty irksome to hear him opine that her decision to decline to provide her uterus, which is to say, a whole lot of her body and that huge medical drama called childbirth, to a developing fetus is only ok because he thinks that the fetus isn't a human being yet. He just so doesn't get it! It doesn't matter whether the fetus is a bit of tissue or a full person. It doesn't have a right to use my body unless I want it there or consent to be it's hero and provide my body for its use. If I decline to support it I undergo and abortion and the fetus dies. That's the end of a precious possibility, but if my humanity (and freedom) is valued as much as Rev. McLennan's is, it wouldn't be against the law.

Like McLennan, but for different reasons, I think that Roe v. Wade did a good job of parsing out how this fundamental conflict between life and freedom can be managed. A woman can choose her freedom over the life of the fetus during the first 6 months of pregnancy. After that, the life of the fetus (and the trauma to society of aborting it) is the more important value, unless it's life is hopelessly compromised or hers is in danger. I honor them for seeing, a generation ago, that women are human beings with the human right to freedom.

We've spent 40 years yammering on about when human life begins in fetuses. Let's ask ourselves instead when all the benefits of a human life (beginning with the right to freely choose when to donate one's body to another the cause of life) to half of the human race begin.

Then we'll be talking.

P.S. Rev. McLennan, "Abortions of convenience" undoubtedly happen, do they? Tell me about one....tell me a real story about a convenient pregnancy, abortion, or decision about motherhood. Just try it.

There are other posts on this subject in the backfiles. Search for "abortion" in the search box above.

Excellence in Ministry- How is "Fellowship" like a Ph d?

The UUA's Board of Trustees is appointing a task force to study the issue of Ministerial (and RE and Musician) accrediting. This is a direct outcome of last December's Excellence in Ministry Summit, and I am glad to see the action.

Ours are not the only professions where we wonder if our preparation and credentialing is really working for us. Here in an article from Harvard Magazine on the requirements and credentialing of Humanities Ph. D students. The ministerial system is different. To our credit, we have evolved a system in which it is not only the practitioners who control credentialing, but those who are served by the professionals in question. But it raises questions we should be looking at.

Mr Roberts' Rules

In writing a memorial eulogy for a woman in our church who was for some years, our parliamentarian, I was recalled to this statement, from Mr. Roberts himself, about his purpose in writing his rules.

1. That the majority prevail.

2. That the minority be heard.

3. That the absent be protected.

My father introduced me to this statement of purpose early in my career, when I was impatient with the arcane lore of Roberts rules, and how it could be used, inadvertently or not, to manipulate a group. It quieted me right down. I remain in favor of a simpler set of rules, but when anyone suggests a new meeting procedure, I mentally run it through Roberts' filter. Will the majority prevail? (there are a surprising number of ways to run meeting in which this is not the outcome). Weill the minority get their chance to be heard? Will the absent be protected from stealth agendas or attempts to manipulate the vote by wearing out the membership?

If I were writing, I'd add another rule, and that is, "Will the rule of law be honored?" That means everything from the law of the state to the bylaws of the group. Mr. Roberts probably took that for granted, but in these days, it needs to be said aloud.

Thanks, Meg Prince, parliamentarian to the Middle Rio Grande Valley, for caring about process. May you rest in peace.

The Rights of licensed and public officials not to do stuff they don't believe in.

You think interracial marriages are wrong? It's your right to believe that.

But your right to act on that belief is constrained by laws and by employment policies. Believing interracial marriages are wrong doesn't give you the right to beat up the groom. And it doesn't give you the right to deny equal protection under the law to interracial couples.

Which means that, if you want to be a Justice of the Peace, you have to abide by the law that requires you to do your duty without prejudice. If that bugs you so much, you need to find another line of work or a way to be a Justice of the Peace who doesn't perform marriages. (if there is such a thing...)

Same thing goes for pharmacists who don't want to dispense some kinds of medicines, and teachers who don't agree with some part of the curriculum, not to mention engineers who hate certain kinds of bridges or ministers who don't like to work Sundays. Doing your job is...a condition of employment! Pharmacists who don't want to handle birth control pills are free to work in the pharmacy of home for the elderly. Teachers who don't believe in Evolution are welcome to teach English or First Grade or Special Ed to severely handcapped children or wherever else they can find that this issue won't come up. Nurses who don't want to perform abortions can find thousands of jobs where that duty will never be asked of them. Even ministers who don't want to work on Sundays can, with dilligence, creativity find paying employment.

Tashlich

This has been running around the Jewish internet, and one of my lay leaders sent it to me as we're doing a simple version of this ritual on Sunday. I thought it was the funniest thing I'd seen in weeks.

On the Jewish New Year, Rosh Hashanah, there is a ceremony called Tashlich. Jews traditionally go to the ocean or a stream or river to pray and throw bread crumbs into the water. Symbolically, the fish devour their sins.

Occasionally, people ask what kind of bread crumbs should be thrown.

Here are suggestions for breads which may be most appropriate for specific sins and misbehaviors:

For ordinary sins - White Bread

For erotic sins - French Bread

For particularly dark sins - Pumpernickel

For complex sins - Multi-Grain

For twisted sins - Pretzels

For tasteless sins - Rice Cakes

For sins of indecision - Waffles

For sins committed in haste -Matzoh

For sins of chutzpah - Fresh Bread

For substance abuse - Stoned Wheat

For use of heavy drugs - Poppy Seed

For petty larceny- Stollen

For committing auto theft - Caraway

For timidity/cowardice - Milk Toast

For ill-temperedness - Sourdough

For silliness, eccentricity - Nut Bread

For not giving full value - Shortbread

For jingoism, chauvinism - Yankee Doodles

For excessive irony - Rye Bread

For unnecessary chances - Hero Bread

For telling bad jokes/puns - Corn Bread

For war-mongering - Kaiser Rolls

For dressing immodestly - Tarts

For causing injury to others - Tortes

For lechery and promiscuity - Hot Buns

For promiscuity with gentiles - Hot Cross Buns For racist attitudes - Crackers

For sophisticated racism -Ritz Crackers

For being holier than thou - Bagels

For abrasiveness - Grits

For dropping in without notice - Popovers

For over-eating - Stuffing

For impetuosity - Quick Bread

For indecent photography - Cheesecake

For raising your voice too often - Challah

For pride and egotism - Puff Pastry

For sycophancy, a**-kissing - Brownies

For being overly smothering - Angel Food Cake

For laziness - Any long loaf

For trashing the environment - Dumplings

For those who require a wide selection of crumbs, we suggest a Tashlich Mix available in three grades (Taslich Lite, Medium, and Industrial Strength) at your favorite Jewish bookstore.

Health Care for Immigrants

There's no doubt about it, we have a problem with illegal immigration in this country. Fueled by our desire for cheap goods...food mostly....and our lack of will to get it together and hammer out a policy, we've got a lot of people who are here, working, raising their families and taking care of each other who are breaking the law and whose employers are breaking the law.

I get that there's a problem that needs to be solved, and I'm all for solving it. A nation that has lots of shadow people is not a good place for anybody. It invites abuse of law and abuse of persons. We need to fix this. And when we fix it, the issue of how to run a health care program for the people of the nation will be solved.

I don't get the fury about illegal aliens. They are, as a whole, model citizens, full of gumption, willing to work very hard at jobs others don't want and family-centered, upwardly mobile, responsible folks. It's not their fault that this nation doesn't have a useful immigration policy. They are being scapegoated in the healthcare battles and in other parts of the political landscape. It's not fair.

And I don't actually want to have to step over the dying ones in the street. I don't want them incubating contageous diseases because the doors of healthcare are closed to them. I don't want their babies damaged from unassisted births, and I don't want them bearing more babies than they can afford to raise. I bet you don't want those things either. I bet even Rep. Wilson doesn't want those things.

Let's get this healthcare thing done so we can get to work on a sensible, enforcable immigration policy. This is not Calcutta. This is Madam Liberty's golden shore.

South Carolina

My old home state of South Carolina is certainly having its problems lately. First it's govenor disappears for a while to have an affaire, and now its Republican senator heckles the president in the most formal of settings. South Carolina is a beautiful state with a rich culture and a reputation for being backwards, and this certainly doesn't help matters. I enjoyed living there enough to be embarassed for them. Wilson appologized (at the request of his party, he made it clear.) President Obama accepted. Obama is a grownup. People who heckle a president in the senate chambers show themselves to be undisciplined hicks.

I'm mad at Van Jones

Before this week, all I'd ever heard about Van Jones was glowing. He spoke at a UUA General Assembly a few years back and I heard numerous people tell me that it was the best speech they'd ever heard or that he was the smartest person they'd ever heard. I'd missed his speech, and I was sorry.

But today, I'm thinking that it was so dumb of him to take the job of Green Czar, that I'm angry at him. Did he think his past statements and petition signatures (that Bush "let" 9/11 happen so he could go to war, is the most damming) wouldn't catch up with him in this incredibly polarized climate? Had he not noticed how much damage President Obama took on just because he was in the presence of Jeremiah Wright? Hello, Mr. best-speaker-people-have-ever-heard! This is the real world speaking! It matters what petitions you signed and what impolite things you said in the heat of various news storms.

Obama (whose people should have done a better vetting job...that's also true) didn't need this. The nation didn't need this. Mr. Jones... your bad.

GA: Voting for Morales...here's why.

After I get through the "lost credentials" routine. This is the first time in 30 years I've left my credentials at home...sheesh...

Let me start by saying that I think the world of Laurel Hallman and will not despair if she is elected president. But I'm casting my vote for Peter Morales. Here's why.

First of all, It is obvious to anyone who sees both candidates that Peter has more energy and enthusiasm for this very difficult job. Both candidates have great qualifications. But it is a REALLY hard job, and doing it well takes passion. Peter's got the passion.

Secondly, as the minister in a city which is 1/3 Hispanic and a church which has several dozen Hispanic members, living in a time when the demographic shift of our nation is towards a much, much larger percentage of Hispanic citizens, I value Peter's bi-lingual heritage and skills.

Thirdly, I value Peter's business experience. We who have been in church work all of our lives get lots of experiences, but we often miss the experiences that a career in business presents. I think our denominational president needs to be a minister for lots of reasons, but I value Peter's business experience and skills he brings from earlier in his life, just as I thought that this was an important part of Bill Sinkford's presidency.

Most of all, I love the way Peter talks about our future, about breaking up the same old same old ways we have doing things and not succeeding all my life. Our movement has everything going for it to meet the spiritual needs of our time and the near future, but our internal culture puts glass doors between us and the people we want to serve. I think it is more likely that under Peter's leadership, we can open those doors.

GA 2009 Minister's Meetings

GA is preceded by two days of minister's meetings. I went to the business-oriented day. It's been a while since the continuing education day was useful to me, so I just come late. It is so good to see one's colleagues! That pleasure was deflated by a business meeting run with such poor process that it felt like an abuse of power...was an abuse of power at least in terms of parlimentary rule....and all for a cause I would have probably supported. I'm feeling very alienated and that's a hard place to be.

The Berry St. Essay was very interesting this year, and a nice blend of a scholarly lecture and a passionate response. The lecturer held up the embarrassing reality that while our denomination had been pursuing anti-racism and multi-culturalism with a passion for a decade, no records have been kept on our progress because nobody wants to ask for statistics about the number of persons of color in congregations. The few statistics we do have come from an outside source (National Pew Research data), or are somewhat suspect. We are amateurs in the statistics business! The speaker went on to point out that a theology underpinning our multiculatural efforts is very much a part of deepest history...a good reminder. The respondant gave a heart-felt personal testamony. An African American, Rosemary finds this the only faith for her but regrets that her children are so lonely as the only children of color wherever they go in UU land, beginning with their own Sunday School.

I was sad to hear this, not only because of the human drama of being a mom wondering if one's work and chosen life is the right one for her children, but because our denomination has put a lot of resources into nurturing ministers of color on the assumption that ministers of color would attract congregants of color. Apparently, that has not happened, even for this splendid, talented minister who lives in a very multi-cultural area. Gives one pause.

(There are plenty of UU Youth of color at GA, by the way, and it seems clear to this casual observer that they enjoy the experience of having a critical mass of peers. But most UU kids don't come to GA.)

Imagineering Faith Expanded

Last week I based my sermon on the aspect of last year's Berry St. Essay which I found most interesting; the dynamics of shame and scorn in our religious communities. I share it with my blogging and Facebook friends here, where it is available in audio, video, and text.

The Real Late Term Abortion

One of the three doctors in the nation publicly willing to do late term abortions was murdered today, probably by a "pro-life" fanatic...murdered as he ushered at his Lutheran Church.

If nobody is pro abortion, then absolutely nobody is pro, "late term" abortions, abortions during the third trimester, abortions which happen after the legal age of viability. Most of these abortions are abortions of wanted, loved, even named babies, and they are caused by tragic circumstances. Nobody talks about them, few people defend them, fewer find a calling to provide them. When they happen they are tragedies, and the only good thing one can say about them is that because of late-term abortions, even greater tragedies are averted.

I found one woman's story of a late-term abortion here, and another story where late-term abortion was contemplated, here. I was once involved in a similar situation. It was a long time ago, soon after my own baby was born, and on the one hand, I hesitate to tell her story, but on the other, the world needs to hear these stories so that they can understand the need for this kind of medical care. I hope "C" doesn't mind...and I hope I remember all the details.

I met "C" in the pregnancy exercise program I went to, post-partum. She was still pregnant, and she discovered late in her 6th month that her baby had genetic abnormalities "incompatable with life outside the womb." The testing took a while, her shock and her husband's made decisions difficult. During those weeks every time she went out of her house people smiled at her pregnant body and sometimes even made small talk about her baby. It was...way too hard. They realized that they couldn't do this for three more months and decided to terminate the pregnancy. The baby was going to die probably during birth, certainly within a few hours. Why keep it on life support for three months...especially since 100% of the life support was being provided by my friend's swollen body.

The hospital ethics board had to be involved in this decision, since it was now in the third trimester, and that delayed things a few more days. In the end, they induced an early labor, and that worked. Technically, it wasn't an abortion, but surely they would have had to resort to that if labor had failed.

The baby did die during birth. The family had as planned, a bedside naming ceremony for her. She was held and loved by parents and grandparents until it was time to let her go.

And about 18 months later, I met their second child in the delivery room, and that was a special joy.

I have read that the doctor who was murdered today was an exceptionally gentle man who not only performed a difficult medical procedure, but who did so with compassion for parents in extremely difficult circumstances. May he rest in peace.