Still haven’t finished the writing I’ve been working on, so you’re stuck with another photograph. This is an Atlantic Horseshoe Crab (Limulus polyphemus) partially buried in the sand of the Long Pasture Audubon sanctuary on Cape Cod. There are Atlantic Slipper Shells (Crepidula fornicata) attached to the top of the shell. This may have been a molted exoskeleton, but it appeared to be a living horseshoe crab that had partially buried itself in the tidal flats at low tide; I decided not to poke at it to see if it was alive.
One hundred days into Donnie Trump’s second reign — er, second term — which religious groups approve of him most?
No surprise — Trump continues to have high approval ratings among White evangelicals. In a recent poll, Pew Research found that 72% of White evangelicals approve of King Donnie — er, President Trump.
Here are the approval ratings for other religious groups in the Pew poll:
72% — White Protestant Christian, evangelical
51% — White Protestant Christian, not evangelical
51% — White Catholic Christian
40% — All US adults
26% — Hispanic Catholic Christian
26% — Religiously unaffiliated
10% — Black Protestant Christian
I was a bit surprised that these approval ratings are very similar to Trump’s first term. In their report, Pew Research says: “Both among the U.S. public as a whole and among major religious groups, Trump’s current approval ratings are on par with what they were around the same time in his first term (April 2017).”
Not surprisingly, White Evangelicals support Trump’s extensive use of executive orders — 53% of them feel that Trump is doing about the right amount by executive order. Only 27% of White evangelicals think Trump is doing too much by executive order, 15% are unsure, and 5% feel he’s doing too little by executive order.
I’d be jumping to conclusions if, based on this one survey, I said that White evangelicals are OK with a president who’s seems to be trying to operate like a king. But I’m keeping that in mind as a possibility.
It was raining today, so the Morris dancers at the New England Folk Festival had to do their thing indoors, in the dreary “Trade Center” next to the hotel. The danced in the middle of the cacophony and distraction of vendors and lunch tables and kid-friendly activities (hula hoops, anyone?). They danced under harsh LED lights instead of real sunlight.
Ring ‘o Bells Morris NYC flourish their hankies at the end of a dance.
It didn’t matter. Ritual dance is ritual dance wherever you do it. It makes you feel that’s there’s something way older than you are. When a Morris side waves their hankies or hits their sticks together, no matter where it is, it can still give me goosebumps.
Renegade Morris about to hit each other’s sticks.
Yes, it would have been better outdoors. But even in a noisy corner of an unattractive trade center, it was worth watching.
We went to the New England Folk Festival, affectionately known as NEFFA, helf in a hotel in Marlborough, Mass. At NEFFA, there are a host of performances, demonstrations, and workshops, mostly relating to folk music or folk dance. Carol did some contra dancing and learned some Cuban dance. I heard a performance by some old folkies (sometimes pronounced “fogies”), attempted to keep up in a Renaissance music jam, and participated in a “pub sing” which was held in an outdoors tent.
On our way out, we happened across an actual pub sing, in the bar of the hotel. Now unlike English bars, American bars are often less than welcoming to singers. Besides, Americans tend to be consumers of music, not participants in music, and we in our bars we prefer to listen to either loud recorded music, or heavily amplified musicians. But this was NEFFA, so it was one of the rare occasions when you could go to an American bar where there was loud, live, unamplified, participatory music.
Today is April 19, 2025. Probably that doesn’t mean anything to you, unless you’re a U.S. history geek, or unless you grew up in Concord or Lexington, Massachusetts. But today is the 250th anniversary of the Battle of Lexington and Concord.
While both the town of Concord and the town of Lexington have annual celebrations, with parades and reenactments, this year they both arranged special celebrations for the 250th anniversary. Fifty years ago, on April 19, 1975, I was in the parade in Concord, marching with my Boy Scout troop. Since I’m pretty sure I won’t be around for the 300th anniversary, I decided that I really had to attend this year’s celebration.
I wanted to watch the reenactment of the battle at the North Bridge, and I knew just where I wanted to stand — in the formal garden at the visitor center of Minuteman National Historical Park. From there you have a panoramic view of the North Bridge and the road down which the Minutemen and militia companies marched to confront His Majesty’s troops.
I should have read the information about the day more carefully. There was no reenactment this year. I was a bit disappointed. Still, I had a marvelous view of the crowds that gathered to watch the ceremonies, and the main events of the ceremonies themselves — the Concord Minutemen firing a salute from the bridge, and the 21 gun salute from a field on the other side of the river.
The view from the formal garden, with the North Bridge in the distance.
The crowd looked a little thin to me; there were not nearly as many people as I had expected. While we were waiting for the ceremonies to begin, I wound up talking with the people on either side of me. To my left was a man from Albany, N.Y., who had attended the reenactment of Paul Revere’s arrival in lexington the night before, spent the night in his car, watched the reenactment of the Battle of Lexington at sunrise, then taken the shuttle to Concord. On the other side of me were a couple who live in Concord, who were kind of interested in the 18th century historical garb that several of the parade units wore; I was able to tell them wheretheycouldobtain18th C. garb, but warned them that it could be expensive.
Congresswoman Lori Trahan and Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey were the only two state or national politicians to show up. Both of them gave good brief speeches, both of which emphasized how important resisting tyranny was in 1775, and still is today. I thought it was a little disrespectful that neither of our U.S. Senators managed to put in an appearance. I’m not surprised that President Donald Trump didn’t show up — though President Gerald Ford showed up in 1975 — but then Trump is not especially patriotic, and has a fairly weak understanding of U.S. history. It’s probably just as well that Trump didn’t show up, because he wouldn’t have been happy with the remarks made by Healey or Trahan, nor with the signs carried by some of the spectators.
A spectator watching the ceremonies at the North Bridge.
Most of the signs that I saw opposed the tyranny of kings. We didn’t want King George in 1775, and we don’t want a king now.
After the ceremonies at the North Bridge concluded, I made my way to the center of town, so I could watch the parade. On my way there, I saw more homemade signs opposing the tyranny of kings. Most of the slogans I’ve seen opposing the Trump administration have been variations on “Hands Off.” I much prefer variations on the “No Kings” slogan, because it gets to the root of what bugs me about the Trump administration — that he’s acting like a king, and all his supporters are OK with that. But we fought the Revolution to get rid of kings — we don’t want any more kings, not now, not ever.
Sign along the road into Concord center.
This year, the reviewing stand for the parade was set up in Monument Square, right in front of Town Hall. The units that put on performances — the fife and drum corps, the bands — always put on a show in front of the reviewing stand. It was crowded there. I moved down the street and stood in front of First Parish of Concord, the Unitarian Universalist church in town (the church the Minutemen belonged to). It was still pretty crowded there, but at least I could see the parade.
The beginning of the parade.
Ever since COVID, I’m not a big fan of crowds. So I walked further along the parade route to where there weren’t that many people.
The Carlisle, Mass., Minutemen.
One of the flag-bearers from one of the Minuteman units was carrying a sign stating his opposition to kings. While this was not historically accurate, it seemed very much in keeping with the sentiments the 18th century Minutemen would have held.
The Stow, Mass., Minutemen.
Again, it’s a good thing Trump the wanna-be-king didn’t come. Popular sentiment was definitely against him. It would have been as if King George showed up in Massachusetts in 1775. Massachusetts then and now is one of the leaders against tyranny. While there were Massachusetts Tories in 1775, and while there are Massachusetts Trump-ites in 2025, in both eras the majority of Massachusetts residents were and are Patriots who don’t want kings lording it over them.
Speaking of Patriots, I was also pleased to see the Town of Concord Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Commission marching in the parade. They carried a banner that read, “Building a Welcoming Community.” I’m old enough to remember the mini-race riot that took place at Concord Carlisle High School on the last day of school in 1978 (I was a senior that year, so I had already graduated and didn’t see the riot myself, but I heard about it). I’d like to pretend that we solved all those race problems and that now everything is hunky-dory, but I guess I have a grimmer view of human nature than that. Human beings find it way too easy to hate one another, so we actually do need organizations that keep us from hating on other people.
One last photo — this was one of my favorite units in the parade, the Assabet Village Minutemen. This unit is from Maynard, Mass., which wasn’t a separate town in 1775, it was a village known as Assabet Village. I like that they’re not wearing a uniform, which seems more historically accurate. I like that a couple of the men are wearing knit caps, not the stereotypical tricorn hat — again, this diversity of headgear seems more historically accurate. The Minutemen and militia of 1775 were ordinary citizens; they were not yet a trained army — and I like that the Assabet Village Minutemen capture this important aspect of the Battle of Concord.
The Assabet Village (Maynard, Mass.) Minutemen.
It makes me want to go out and buy myself a suit of 18th century clothing. Not that I can afford it, but it’s fun to think about.
“As we mark the fifth anniversary of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Hartford Institute for Religion Research’s ‘Exploring the Pandemic Impact on Congregations’ (EPIC) project offers a unique window into how American religious communities navigated this unprecedented crisis. What began as an emergency response to immediate challenges evolved into a profound transformation of congregational life in America. Our longitudinal research, spanning from mid-2021 to present day, tells a story of resilience, adaptation, and, ultimately, renewal.”
After summarizing some of their earlier research, HIRR says that the financial news for congregations isn’t great, but it is good:
“Our latest financial report reveals surprising stability. The median income of congregations has reached a 25-year high, though not keeping pace with inflation. Nearly half of congregations now report extensive use of digital donation platforms.”
You can view a PDF of the financial report here. Mind you, it would have been nice if we’d kept up with inflation. But still, this is better financial news than I expected.
Then HIRR outlines other, more serious, challenges:
“Five years after COVID-19 … persistent challenges remain: fluctuating congregation size, aging demographics among both clergy and members, reluctance to embrace change in some traditions and questions about meaningful engagement with primarily virtual attendees.”
The last three items seem a pretty good summary of the problems I’m seeing — aging demographics, reluctance to embrace some changes, questions about how to remain engaged with virtual attendees. No, I don’t have any answers, but I find it very helpful to list the major challenges we’re facing.
Over the past week, I’ve been writing a series of posts about bullies in the workplace —although I prefer the terminology of Robert I. Sutton, professor of business at Stanford University, who calls them “assholes,” not “bullies.” Now I’d like to consider the opposite of assholes. And what, you ask, is the opposite of an asshole? — it’s a boss who’s nice but incompetent.
Back in 2012, Sutton wrote a blog post titled “Are incompetent and nice bosses even worse than the incompetent assholes?” This post is based on a chapter from his book Good Boss Bad Boss, in which he describes in some detail what a good boss looks like. Sutton says that “one of the most personally troubling lessons I’ve learned (or at least am on the verge of believing)” is this:
“I am starting to wonder… if nice but incompetent bosses are even worse (at least in some ways and at certain times) than competent assholes.”
Sutton then includes an excerpt from his book Good Boss Bad Boss which gives a vivid portrait of a nice-but-incompetent boss:
“People may love that crummy boss so much they constantly excuse, or don’t even notice, clear signs of incompetence. For example, there is one senior executive I know who is utterly lacking in the necessary skills or thirst for excellence his job requires. He communicates poorly (he rarely returns even important e-mails and devotes little attention to developing the network of partners his organization needs), lacks the courage to confront — let alone fire — destructive employees, and there are multiple signs his organization’s reputation is slipping. But he is such a lovely person, so caring and so empathetic, that his superiors can’t bring themselves to fire him.”
So does this apply to Unitarian Universalist clergy? You bet it does. If you’ve been around Unitarian Universalism long enough, you’ll be able to think of clergy who were kind, gentle souls whom everyone loved — and who drove their congregation into the ground because of their incompetence. I started working as a Director of Religious Education (DRE) in 1994, and I remember hearing from other DREs about ministers who were good and nice people, but who were horrible to work for because they lacked necessary skills, had no thirst for excellence, communicated poorly, lacked the courage to confront poor employees, didn’t develop the network of partners the congregation needed, etc. — just like the senior executive that Sutton writes about.
But remember that the ultimate boss of a Unitarian Universalist congregation is the board. And in my experience, boards of congregations can also be nice-but-incompetent. Back in the 1990s, I remember one board that was so nice that they refused to terminate a destructive employee, even though that one employee was causing massive turnover in every other staff position. I’ve also seen boards that were poor communicators, that neglected to develop a network of partners, etc.
Whether it’s a nice-but-incompetent board, or a nice-but-incompetent minister, it can be very unpleasant to work under them — ask any DRE who has worked under a nice-but-incompetent boss. Sure, they’re really nice people. But they will not protect you from another staff person who’s destructive. They will not communicate effectively with you. They do not have the skills they need to lead effectively. They will not develop networks that bring in resources that will help you do your job. And because they’re so nice, they will never get fired. Finally, to point out the obvious, whether you’re paid staff and to volunteer staff, it’s equally painful to work under a nice-but-incompetent boss (it might even be worse for volunteer staff, because you’re not even getting a salary).
Sutton concludes his blog post with some advice:
“There are two lessons here. The first is for bosses. If you are well-liked, civilized, and caring, your charms provide protective armor when things go wrong. Your superiors are likely to give you the benefit of the doubt as well as second and third chances — sometimes even if you are incompetent. I would add, however, that if you are a truly crummy boss — but care as much for others as they do for you — stepping aside is the noble thing to do.
“The second lesson is for those who oversee lovable losers. Doing the dirty work with such bosses is distasteful. But if rehabilitation has failed — or things are falling apart too fast to risk it — the time has come to hit the delete button.”
“…if rehabilitation has failed…the time has come to hit the delete button….”
“In all the conversations I had with clergy on bullying, the pattern was identical: one congregant takes the lead and levels small, unrelenting criticisms against the minister that grow over time. Clergy are confused, and the congregation often has no idea what is happening until it is too late. The regions or Office of Vocation get involved in what is perceived as a ‘conflict’ and bring to the task a set of policies and procedures that are inadequate for bullying. The problem goes unresolved, and bullying remains unchecked in congregations, impacting minister after minister.”
As it happens, I’ve been bullied by congregants a couple of times. The first time it happened, I lucked out — the bully (who was also bullying other staff and lay leaders) left the congregation soon thereafter. And by the time it happened to me again, I knew exactly what was going on, so it had less impact on me. It was still extremely unpleasant.
Perhaps the most important part of the article is the brief section on why bullying seems to be on the increase:
“Alison Miculan has been on the front lines of supporting bullied clergy as the organizing chair of Unifaith. She believes the problem is ‘pretty rampant right now.’ Miculan says the COVID-19 pandemic led to an increase in bullying due to the frustration, fear, and anxiety in congregations today. ‘We are an angry society, and that’s been reflected in the church.’ …”
Note that the article is about congregations in Canada. I’d say that the United States is even more angry than Canada right now, which I guess means our congregations can expect more bullying and bullies than usual.
Mind you, I still don’t care for the term “bully.” I still prefer the term “asshole,” as defined by business professor Robert Sutton in his book The No Asshole Rule. Using Sutton’s term helps me remember that assholes have a negative impact on organizational performance. That is, it’s not just about one bully making the life of one target absolutely miserable — it’s about how an asshole not only makes life miserable for their targets, but they can also drag down the entire organization.
I think it’s a pretty good report. And I think anyone involved in congregational leadership will find it worth reading.
A key finding detailed in the report is that there are five key skill sets where clergy leaders felt they did not receive adequate training. Those five key skill sets:
Administration and management
Technology skills
Soft skills for leadership, a broad category which includes:
inspire others to achieve shared goals
set a clear vision and communicate it effectively
create a culture of accountability and excellence
solve problems
coach or mentor others
manage conflict well
delegate tasks
have high emotional intelligence, incl. self-awareness and self-care
Counseling and pastoral care
Facilities management
I encourage you to read the report, which includes many direct quotes from interviews with working clergy about what they wished they had been taught in theological school. One of my favorite quotes in the report starts off like this:
“So, I took two semesters on the early church and memorized all of the heresies of the early church. No one has ever walked into my office with a crisis on Donatism. No one has ever come worried about the light of Christ in them and if they were a Gnostic. I feel pretty strongly that a vast majority of my seminary education was great if I wanted to be a theologian, and useless if I wanted to be a parish pastor.”
But the real point here — for both clergy and for lay leaders — is pretty simple: clergy do, in fact, need to know these skills. In the Unitarian Universalist tradition, lay leaders of congregation supervise ministers, so lay leaders should be prepared to evaluate whether clergy have these skills or not. When clergy do not have these skills, lay leaders should work with clergy to prioritize which of these skills are most important in their congregation, and then figure out how to get clergy appropriate training for any needed skills. And lay leaders have to realize that learning these skills takes time, which means they have to reduce the clergy workload so that there’s time for the required training.
Furthermore, since lay leaders are pretty notorious for being inconsistent supervisors, clergy have to take it on themselves to hold themselves accountable for learning the high-priority skills. Ideally, clergy will find someone (e.g., a consultant or coach) who will work with them over an extended period as they learn a needed skill.
Another thought [added 15 April 2025]: I’ve been thinking about ministerial bullying recently, and I suspect at least some bullying happens because clergy lack soft skills (esp. inspiring others, coaching and mentoring, managing conflict, delegating tasks well, and having emotional intelligence), and because they lack administration and management skills. I suspect that if you don’t have soft skills, and you don’t know how to manage, it’s much easier to become a bully — because you don’t know any other way to get things done.
One more thing: when lay leaders are in the process of hiring a new minister, they should look over these five key skill sets, and determine which ones their new hire absolutely must have. During the hiring process, both lay leaders and clergy should make a point of discussing these five key skill sets together. Better that everyone has clear expectations right up front.
