In UU there is a movement/process by which individual congregations become designated as “Welcoming Congregations.”
The following is from what I believe is the official UUA site:
Congregations who publicly and successfully welcome bisexual, gay, lesbian, and transgender people have the following qualities:
Includes and address the needs of b/g/l/t persons at every level of congregational life—in worship, in programs, in social occasions, and in rites of passage—welcoming not only their presence, but the gifts and particularities of their lives as well.
Assumes the presence of b/g/l/t people and celebrates this diversity by having inclusive language and content in their worship.
Fully incorporates the experiences of b/g/l/t persons throughout all programs, including religious education.
Includes an affirmation and nondiscrimination clause in our by-laws and other official documents affecting all dimensions of congregational life, including membership, hiring practices, and the calling of religious professionals.
Engages in outreach into the b/g/l/t community in its advertising and by actively supporting b/g/l/t affirmative groups.
Offers congregational and ministerial support for union and memorial services for b/g/l/t persons, and for celebrations of…family definitions.
Celebrates the lives of all people and welcomes same-sex couples, recognizing their committed relationships, and equally affirms displays of caring and affections without regard to sexual orientation.
Seeks to nurture ongoing dialogue between bisexual, gay, lesbian, transgender, and heterosexual persons and to create deeper trust and sharing.
Encourages the presence of a chapter of Interweave.
Affirms and celebrates b/g/l/t issues and history during the church year.
Attends to legislative developments and works to promote justice, freedom, and equality in the larger society.
Speaks out when the rights of bisexual, gay, lesbian, and transgender people are at stake.
Celebrates the lives of all people and their ways of expressing their love for each other.
I would be interested in hearing views. opinions, and experiences about this from UUs and others.
Since I started this, I’ll toss out a few disjointed observations to get the ball going. As this develops, I’ll expand upon my views as appropriate.
I’m not entirely convinced this is “a good idea.” I am wary about giving any particular group a special invitation to the dance. I was under the impression that we welcomed everyone, whatever their sex, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. I know I found my way through the doors myself. Moreover, I don’t want to welcome BGLT individuals to my church. I want to welcome UU’s to my church. I really couldn’t care less about the sexual preferences of the person sitting next to me on Sunday. (Wait a minute, I mean on the side other than where my wife is sitting.) I also question budget implications.
Is it necessary? Let see, UU ordains openly BGLT ministers, conducts union ceremonies. My particular church rents space to at least 3 primarily BGLT churches, organizations, support groups that I know of. Literature is prominently displayed, and BGLT issues/concerns are included in all aspects of services.
My experience, my prior congregation became designated a WC. I did not appreciate the manner in which it was done. (That is not the sole, or even one of the main reasons I left there.) The way I saw it, there was a discussion along the lines of, “BGLT people are people too.” Well, duh! I kept waiting for a discussion of what the implications of this change would be for the church. I don’t think you change bylaws lightly. The discussion I desired never happened. Then, it devolved into, “Either you support this, or you are wrong.” And it was voted in overwhelmingly. Since then, some people have left the church because of this, there have been budget implications, and people have expressed concerns about specific occurrences.
My current church is beginning/investigating the process. Again, I have been unable to engender any organized discussion of the organizational need/implications of this action. Moreover, I am astounded/troubled to hear folk who have gone to meetings say, “I’m so glad we have decided to become a WC.” Whoa Nellie!
The reassurances are that we are still at a very initial stage. My concern is that the next step, which I consider necessary, will be skipped over, and it will come down to a vote based on whether it is politically attractive, makes folk feel good, or offends them. Whatever decision the congregation makes, I want it to be an informed one, and for the best reasons for each individual. And, not to suggest ill motive upon the supporters, but they have an agenda, a desired goal. So I will not accept that they are objective moderators of the discussion.
My mind is not made up, but as you can no doubt tell, I think I am leaning one way. Please feel free to try to convince me otherwise. Not convinced it is broken, I see no need to fix it.
For those who need a firmly stated OP instead of having a GD develop organically (as they often seem to anyway), here goes:
Resolved, that the designation of a UU congregation as a WC is unnecessary and undesitrable.
Tut tut. Esprix of the Grammar Police here. You’ll have to pay for that “Your/You’re” infraction, mate…
Now, then, regarding the UU Welcoming Congregation Program, I was actually pretty heavily involved in queer UU stuff right after the WC had been implemented (I still have a copy of the first publishing of the book, which was quickly revised IIRC). I also helped several churches in my area, including the one where I was choir director for 7 years, by either participating or helping to administrate the workshop series.
First, a breakdown of what the WC program is. The book, “The Welcoming Congregation,” outlines a series of 10 workshop sessions that cover a wide range of LGBT topics, from what it means to be, discrimination they face, religious implications and interpretations, AIDS, family issues, homophobia, etc. A congregation decides to set up a committee to organize and run the workshop (details on how to do this vary from church to church). After the workshops are completed, the church and/or the committee does its own self-evaluation and decides if they meet the goals outlined in the book; if they do, they submit to the Unitarian Universalist Association that they feel they’ve achieved those goals, and they are issued a certificate that proclaims them a Welcoming Congregation. That’s it. It’s not a requirement to be a WC in order to be in the UUA. It’s not a requirement that any church do the workshop program, whether they obtain those goals or not. It is purely voluntary and self-administered.
Just wanted to explain what it was to the non-UU’s or those who don’t know what the heck the program actually is. Everything else Dinsdale posted is accurate.
Now, from the start, of course I’ll admit that I’m biased - I’m gay. I’ll also say that I like the (revised) version of the program, and I think it did good in the congregations in which I participated. Is the program itself perfect? Not by far, but I still like it. Are its goals perfect? Obviously that’s open to debate.
Are we trying to be too “all-inclusive?” Perhaps. It’s the bane of lots of queer organizations who want to be open to gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered, transvestites, questioning, youth, women, straight allies… whew! (This is why some people prefer the word “queer” - it sums it up nicely without getting into the “alphabet soup” syndrome.) But is there harm in being specific? I mean, if we’re going to err, wouldn’t you rather err on the side of inclusiveness?
I’d wager you feel the same way about women, blacks, the handicapped - we welcome everyone, including them. But although there is something to be said for the “Keep It Simple, Stupid” principle, would it be better or worse if those words were removed from your congregation’s mission statement (assuming they’re in there)? “We accept everyone.” Sounds good, but is it affirming enough of the differences our denomination celebrates?
This is especially important considering how those differences are shunned by other denominations, and it is precisely because we do celebrate them that people find UUism and make it their religious home. Again, I say we err on the side of inclusiveness.
You and I may be enlightened people, but you’re making the false assumption that all UU’s are enlightened people. Guess what? *Homophobia is alive and well in the UU denomination! Most of it is subtle, and borne of ignorance or poor experience. Like every good liberal we of course say it doesn’t exist, but I very much assure you it does, and I often question whether we’re addressing it adequately or not. Hell, I was even rebuked by a fellow gay conventioneer, at a gay UU conference no less, that I was “too girly.” Tell me that doesn’t need to be addressed!
We overcome sexism, racism, anti-Semitism, and other like nasties by confronting them head-on, taking the time to understand them, and positively dealing with them. Are you prepared to say that sexism is also completely wiped out in the UU denomination? Or racism? No - it will never been 100% gone, which is why we must be constantly on vigil against it. Why should homophobia be any different? In order to overcome the issue, we must first understand it.
Just like women have a different life experience from men, and we need to understand that in order to accept the differences they bring to the table, so too do we need to realize that gay men, lesbians and bisexuals have a very different life experience, and in order to accept and celebrate, those life experiences also need to be understood. Particularly in this time of high-profile gay and lesbian issues like marriage and adoption and such, this becomes as much a social issue as much as a spiritual one.
(Besides, in at least the First Unitarian Church of Philadelphia, the gay community has practically saved the church from ruin. My friend Gerry estimated that probably 40% of the congregation is gay, and they’re all very involved in the church and donate generously to keep things going (the church is a mess lately, and it’s sad). So ya never know when those DINK’s might come in handy 'round canvas time… ;))
Admittedly this one I don’t understand. Other than the nominal costs of workshop materials, there are no expenses that I am aware of. Can you explain this?
Think about a gay person looking for a spiritual home, and think about UUism. Frankly, I find that most people haven’t even heard of UUism, let alone know what we stand for (well, at least until they let me prattle on about it for a few minutes - ask Dr. Boyfriend, he’s sick of it! :D). So if a gay person is in need of some kind of religious community, not only does he need to know what UUism is, and that it’s accepting, but having it explicitly state so makes a huge difference. I mean, technically “all men are created equal” is the governing principle of this country, right? So why do we need the Equal Rights Amendment? Why do we need civil rights legislation? Why do we need the Employment Non-Discrimination Act? Sometimes these things need to be explicitly addressed before they can be solved.
Now, this sounds like it was pretty much a typical UU fellowship, and if a gay person walked through the door, they’d feel welcomed just by seeing what they see and hearing what they hear. And as one friend pointed out to me, “The ones who want to do it are usually the ones who don’t need it, and the ones that go to the workshops are usually the ones that don’t need to.” But we also joked that the real test of whether or not a church was accepting was if they hung the WC proclamation in the vestibule where everyone could see it every time they walked in the church, or in the minister’s office over in the dusty corner. By being listed in gay publications and through gay community centers (one of the things the series encourages), it sends a clear message to those who are looking without having actually been in a UU church that yes, there is a home for you - please come! In the gay papers and such in Philadelphia I know I always look for the several UU churches in the Delaware Valley, and it always makes me proud.
I might also point out that this isn’t the only program of its kind, and certainly not only one a church does. Hell, what about RE? Certainly teaching about and teaching tolerance for a wide variety of religions isn’t a “financial burden” or going to unduly impact the congregation, is it? No. That’s what UUism is all about. In the context of this program being along the same lines as a women’s group or a men’s group or a Jewish seminar, I think this compares equally.
Sadly, I don’t think you’re the only church this has happened to, and I do see your point. I mean, after all, who could say no to such a UU-type ideal? And concerns about how it would impact the church is certainly valid. But at the same time I think your fears and/or concerns may be unfounded (which doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be discussed and addressed, but I think when they do, you’ll be more comfortable with the answers). Should you be bullied into it? Of course not. Heck, even one of the workshops we discussed broadening the WC’s goals to include blacks, women, etc., because of similar concerns as yours, but as someone pointed out, this is supposed to be a gay-specific series, so let’s not overcomplicate it.
Well then by God stand up and make your voice be heard. We are, after all, proponents of the democratic process - talk to the committee looking into it, talk to the president and/or minister, but definitely pursue this. You should also point out that the WC is not the end-all-be-all of UU queer inclusivity. If the fact that some people are saying, “Hey, once we get that piece of paper, we won’t have to worry about doing gay stuff anymore!”, well, there’s certainly a problem there. If you point out that the WC program is neither necessary nor the end of the process, but rather the start of one, it might make people see things as you do - are we already inclusive enough? Do we need to do this program, or are our butts covered? My guess, though, is that there will always be someone who needs this kind of a program, and they are not people like you, but rather the people who think “once and then we’re done,” or the people that are against doing the program because they are, indeed, homophobic.
I think, though, that above all else, you should attend the workshops if they do decide to hold them (or at least get your hands on the book itself and/or the proposal of the people organizing it to see the details). If nothing else, it’ll give you a first-hand account of what, actually, the program does, if it will help your congregation, and if it’s something worth pursuing further, or if it’s just redundant.
Thanks for your response. Thought you might have an opinion on this.
Re financial implications, I’ve never been to a UU church that complained about all this extra cash in their budget. Sound familiar? After my old church became designated a WC, 2 new “queer” committees formed and requested funding, and the pre-existing Interweave significantly increased it’s budget request. Add something, and something else has to go. Similarly, if the church funds a “queer” activity, say a dance, does something else have to go? Just something that should be discussed openly beforehand, and wasn’t in this church. It bothers me a bit when the church seems more concerned outreach, than with the needs of the folk who are already in the pews.
Didn’t go to the workshop in the old church. Figured I didn’t have to be shown photos of the species (not to suggest that there aren’t UUs who could use the info.) By not going, I was told my views later weren’t valid. This time, I went to the first (and to this time the only) work shop. And it was pretty much what I expected. Did I mention some of my best friends are queer? And I really don’t give a fuck. It took quite a while to realize how much my queer friends/neighbors appreciate that, and that I just deal with them as people on their own merits, instead of as queers. I guess I forget how many judgmental assholes are out there.
And I have made my views known in this church. It was disappointing to have to spend an entire Sat (and $10) at the workshop, and not have my questions answered.
But to tell the truth, this really isn’t an issue that is important enough to me that I want to make it my mission. So I see the potential for a few people who ARE committed convincing the unthinking kneejerk liberals, and having it pushed through. Like I said, it boggled my mind to have someone who participated in the workshop I was at stand up before the whole church and say “We have decided to become a WC.” Talk about someone unclear on what happened.
It would surprise me if there is a queer support/social group that doesn’t know that UU is just about the most accepting/tolerant/“welcoming” denomination out there, whether or not an individual congregation designates itself as such. I used to tell my neighbors to come to my church, and they would say, “Why? We’re Catholic.”
Why expressly welcome queers, but not blacks, etc? Why isn’t a rainbow triangle, prominently displayed on the front door, enough? The other twist is, I live in conservative whitebread suburbia. Yeah, I know the queers are everywhere, but it’s not like my church is in Boys Town on the near north side. Gee, I wonder how come the pews aren’t full of blacks? Or the corner coffee shop for that matter? Reminds me of the Sam Kinnison bit about the starving Ethiopians. “YOU LIVE IN THE FUCKING DESERT!!”
Nother point - not quite sure, but maybe I don’t feel the same about transgendered folk as I do about BGL.
Final not necessarily insignificant point, after my old church became a WC, the banner they hung said the “celebrate” BGLT … Whaddaya say, grammar cop? Does celebrate = welcome? Or was that just an innocent typo.
There. Have I shown my hand too much? Trying to make sure this “Kick me” sign doesn’t fall off my back.
And I really don’t give a fuck. It took quite a while to realize how much my queer friends/neighbors appreciate that, and that I just deal with them as people on their own merits, instead of as queers. I guess I forget how many judgmental assholes are out there.