Religion – Yet Another Unitarian Universalist

What’s the biggest problem of this political moment?

Back in 2018, I wrote about some of the challenges the Baby Boomers face — including financial challenges. We hear over and over again how the Boomers are inheriting a ton of money from their parents, so of course all Boomers must be financially secure. Well, not exactly true…

There’s an article in today’s Boston Globe titled “Mass. officials are scrambling to stem the wave of older adults losing their homes.” In the article, reporter Kay Lazar reports on “an ominous wave of older adults who are losing their homes or just scraping by.” Lazar cites some depressing statistics:

“Adults 50 and older are the fastest-growing age group experiencing homelessness, comprising nearly half of the country’s homeless population, according to the US Department of Health and Human Services. Federal data show a 17 percent jump in the number of Massachusetts adults ages 55 and older counted as homeless from 2023 to 2024, the most recent numbers available. Nationally, that increase was 6 percent.”

This reminds me of a by Elizabeth White titled 55, Underemployed, and Faking Normal: Your Guide to a Better ~~Retirement~~ Life. White’s book, published a decade ago, showed that many 55 year olds simply didn’t have enough money to retire — and that included people like White herself, a highly educated woman who at age 55 found herself working low-paying jobs because that’s all she could get.

White’s book is still in print — because it’s still relevant. White wrote: “This is why the budget battles on Capitol Hill — which until recently only threatened to cut social security and other social-insurance programs like Medicare and Medicaid — are so ludicrous. What we’re really talking about is dooming millions and millions of women to misery and destitution.” And here we are, ten years later, hearing exactly the same claptrap from political leaders, including from our elderly (78 years old) president. Yes indeedy. I’m so glad we live in a Christian nation where our leaders devoutly follow the teachings of Jesus: “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” (Matt. 19:21, NIV) I’m just so glad we have good Christian leaders who read their Bibles and decide to cut aid to poor elders so they can doom millions and millions of women to poverty and destitution.

OK, that’s enough sarcasm for now.

My real point is that the current culture wars are actually being fought over whether we help poor people move on up out of poverty, or whether we push more people into poverty. Rev. William Barber and the Poor People’s Campaign make the point that there are 140 million Americans who are functionally living in poverty. Nor do I see either major political party facing up to the magnitude of this issue. Actually, I don’t see Unitarian Universalists at the national level facing up to the magnitude of poverty in this country.

Back to the Boston Globe article for some insight into just how bad the problem is:

“‘I am finding more seniors living in their cars,’ said Sheri Miller-Bedau, a city health inspector in Attleboro. ‘We are in Massachusetts. We have great schools. We are supposed to be leading edge. How is this happening?’ She said local shelters were so full this past winter that even older adults living in their cars were not considered an emergency and were told they had at least a six-month wait.”

And to drive the point home, here’s another quote from the Globe article:

“[Julian] Cyr [D, Provincetown], whose district — Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket — is home to the state’s oldest population, said it’s becoming increasingly common to see seniors living in their cars. ‘It’s a housing crisis on steroids,’ he said. ‘When I stop at a park or restroom [on the Cape], I will often see a car, a sedan packed to the gills, and there is an older person, usually an older woman, who is living in the car.'”

And it just might be that the biggest problem of this political moment is not fascism, or racism, or sexism, or homophobia, or immigration, or global climate change — the biggest problem of this political moment just might be poverty.

Walk in the woods

It’s a stressful time in the world right now — what with brutal wars in Ukraine, Israel/Gaza, Sudan, Myanmar, and elsewhere — and with economic uncertainty and political instability in the U.S. — and a host of other problems, like looming ecological collapse.

As a result of all these stress-filled events, there are lots of pundits telling us how we can reduce our stress. Recently, I’ve heard a number of pundits tell me that if I want to reduce my stress I should take a walk in the woods. (Before you get all snarky, yes I know this advice makes unwarranted assumptions: that I live in a bioregion where there are woods to walk in; that I live in a human place where enough woodlands remain to walk in; that if there are woods to walk in, they’re safe enough that you can walk in them; that I don’t have physical limitations that preclude walking in the woods. As it happens, I do live in a bioregion which does have woodlands, I’m fortunate enough to live near a 3,000 acre state park which is mostly wooded and mostly safe, and I am physically able to walk in the woods.)

I hate to tell those pundits, but taking a walk in the woods is not going to reduce my stress.

Yesterday, I took a walk in our nearby state park. In many places in that park, American Beech (Fagus grandifolia) are the predominant tree species. But our American Beeches are under attack, and most of the beech trees I saw appeared to be in poor health. To be blunt, beech trees are being killed off by invasive organisms.

First, there’s Beech Bark Disease (BBD):

“BBD is an insect-fungus complex that involves the beech scale insect (Cryptococcus fagisuga Lind.) and the fungi Neonectria faginata and Neonectria coccinea…. It is predicted that BBD will spread across the entire range of American beech in the United States in the next 40–50?years.” (Catalina Salgado-Salazar et al., G3 (Bethesda) [Genes, Genomes, Genetics]. 2021 Mar 9;11(4). https://doi.org/10.1093/g3journal/jkab071 )

The scale insect, which arrived in North America in the early twentieth century, spreads the fungus. The fungus infects the tree causing unsightly canker sores on the bark:

Smooth beech tree bark, with rough canker sores running across it — Beech Bark Disease on an American Beech tree in Wompatuck State Park

There is no known cure for Beech Bark Diseases. It often proves fatal.

Second, beech trees are also under attack from Beech Leaf Disease:

“Symptoms of beech leaf disease (BLD), first reported in Ohio in 2012, include interveinal greening, thickening and often chlorosis in leaves, canopy thinning and mortality. Nematodes from diseased leaves of American beech (Fagus grandifolia) sent by the Ohio Department of Agriculture to the USDA, Beltsville, MD in autumn 2017 were identified as the first recorded North American population of Litylenchus crenatae (Nematology, 21, 2019, 5), originally described from Japan.” (Lynn Kay Carta et al., “Beech leaf disease symptoms caused by newly recognized nematode subspecies,” Forest Pathology, 27 Feb. 2020 https://doi.org/10.1111/efp.12580 )

Here’s what the leaves look like after the nematodes have attacked them (I took this photo last May):

Beech tree leaves that are curled and discolored — Curled leaves of American Beech, showing damage by Beech Leaf Disease

As I understand it, foresters and dendrologists are still learning about Beech Leaf Disease. But it’s very clear that Beech Leaf Disease causes trees to lose most of their leaves, and it’s equally clear that Beech Leaf Disease eventually leads to the death of the tree.

As with Beech Bark Diseases, there is no known cure.

The upshot is that we’re going to lose all, or nearly all, of our American Beech trees in the next decade or so — just as we lost nearly all of our American Chestnut trees in the early twentieth century (due to Chestnut Blight, an invasive fungus), and just as we lost nearly all of our American Elm trees in the mid-twentieth century (due to Dutch Elm Disease, an invasive fungus), and just as we lost nearly all of our ash trees in the early twenty-first century (due to Emerald Ash Borer, an invasive insect).

Invasive organisms are predicted to be one of the major causes of the calamitous decrease in biodiversity that we’re now facing. I suppose you could go for a walk in the woods and willfully ignore these evidences of global environmental disaster. If you’re going to do that, you might as well engage in one of those chic mindfulness practices that helps you forget that anything bad is happening. And what the hell, if you need to be in denial — if that’s what it takes to reduce your stress and keep your sanity — then I say, go for it. But please don’t tell me that I should take a walk in the woods to reduce my stress — what works for you doesn’t necessarily work for me.

Which religious groups support Trump?

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.

Read the report here.

U.S. religion 5 years after COVID

At the end of March, Hartford Institute for Religion Research (HIRR) posted an update on their research into the impact of the COVID pandemic on organized religion in the U.S. They began the update by saying:

“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.

The opposite of a bullying boss

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.”

Close-up of a delete key on a computer keyboard. — “…if rehabilitation has failed…the time has come to hit the delete button….”

Part of a series of posts on clergy and bullying — Sigh. Not Again. — What ministerial bullying looks like — What ministers didn’t learn in theological school — When clergy get bullied — The opposite of a bullying boss

When clergy get bullied

Recently, I wrote about what it looks like when clergy act as bullies. But clergy can also be the targets of bullying. What does that look like?

In a recent article on a United Church of Canada website, Christopher White describes what it looks like when clergy get bullied:

“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.

Whatever term you use, it’s definitely worth reading the article: “More United Church clergy are feeling targeted by congregational bullies.”

What ministers didn’t learn in theological school

The Religious Workforce Project has released a report titled “What Clergy Leaders Wish They Had Been Trained To Do: And Why It Matters.”

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.

What ministerial bullying looks like

Last month, there was a dust-up at Winchester Cathedral in England. Not surprisingly, as a cathedral of the Church of England they have an unbelievable music program. The long-time music director and organist was Andrew Lumsden, led the Winchester Cathedral Choir to a Grammy award in 2024 for their soundtrack to a Star Wars video game. Lumsden suddenly resigned last summer with no explanation. At about the same time, half the adult choristers — so-called “lay clerks” — quit. In addition, the boy choristers were also well below the usual number. Upon receiving numerous complaints, including a negative social media campaign, the bishop commissioned an outside review. Very Rev. Catherine Ogle, Dean of the cathedral — the senior management position in the Cathedral organization — announced she would retire in May, 2025, but after the outside review was completed she announced an immediate departure and left in early March.

So why all these departures?

According to Living Church magazine — an international periodical of the Anglo-Catholic wing of the worldwide Anglican communion — the problem was bullying by the Precentor of the Cathedral, Rev. Canon Andy Trenier. Back on July 3, 2024, Living Church reported:

“Amid public accusations of bullying, Winchester Cathedral has lost its 22-year director of music [i.e., Lumsden], the senior non-executive member of its chapter, and half of its adult male choristers, or lay clerks. The dean, the Very Rev. Catherine Ogle, has taken a break that the cathedral suggested will be brief, and the precentor and sacrist accused of bullying, the Rev. Canon Andy Trenier, ‘is on light duties,’ a statement by the cathedral staff said.”

Living Church quotes from other news sources that point to management practices that sound questionable to me, including possible mismanagement of funds:

“The cathedral’s season of discontent has been the subject of various media reports, from the tabloid Mail on Sunday to the cultural magazine The Critic. ‘The talk is of funds being diverted away from the choir and into other areas of cathedral life, including other start-up choral groups within the cathedral,’ Gavin McCormick wrote in The Critic. ‘Rumours that the whole choral foundation in the cathedral is under threat have abounded. It is not difficult to see why: the ranks of the lay clerks (who stood at a full complement of 12 in [former dean Trevor] Beeson’s day [the 1990s]) have shrunk to a minimal level (now just 7, perhaps soon 6); boy choristers are also numerically down. The choir looks threadbare — and communication about why this is so, and how the problem will be solved, has been non-existent.'”

The idea of start-up choral groups sounds good, but if those start-up groups sued funds earmarked for the main music program, to me that doesn’t sound so good. I’d pay more attention, however, to the decline in the number of choristers. Reportedly, that decline was the result of the alleged bullying. Living Church went on to report what the bullying looked like:

“Ali Kefford of The Mail on Sunday wrote about Trenier: ‘He is said to have berated the Director of Music Dr Andrew Lumsden in front of the boy choristers, and told singers they could leave if they didn’t agree with his approach. Those targeted by his volcanic temper are said to have been left trembling.’ Kefford added: ‘Canon Trenier’s relationship with the eight adult male lay clerks is said to have irretrievably broken down amid allegations that he has been coercive, manipulative, and belittling. They are four short of their usual tally of 12 because, his critics say, working at Winchester is now seen as a poison chalice.'”

These days, the term for people who behave in the way Trenier is alleged to have behaved is “bully.” I often use a different term. Back in 2007 Robert I. Sutton, professor of business at Stanford University, called this kind of manager an “asshole.” In his book The No Asshole Rule, Sutton details how abusive supervisors — bullies, if you will — often prove to be a detriment to the overall performance of an organization. Thus, it’s not just that assholes are a pain to work with, they actually damage the organization.

Best of all, Sutton has a fairly precise definition for what constitutes an asshole. “Bully” often proves to be a vaguely defined term, but Sutton turns “asshole” into a precisely defined term so you can clearly identify who’s an asshole, and who isn’t. According to Sutton, there are two main tests for determining who is an asshole:

“Test One: After talking to the alleged asshole, does the ‘target’ feel oppressed, humiliated, de-energized, or belittled by the person? In particular, does the target feel worse about him or herself? Test Two: Does the alleged asshole aim his or her venom at people who are less powerful rather than at people who are more powerful?”

From the few reports that I’ve read on the situation at Winchester Cathedral, it does sound like Andy Trenier might pass both tests. If it’s true that he has a “volcanic temper” that leaves underlings “trembling,” then he appears to pass the first test. And according to reports, he yelled at people he supervises, i.e., people who have less power than he, which would mean he passes the second test.

For our purposes, though, we don’t need to try to judge the facts of the Winchester cathedral case. The allegations, whether true or not, give a pretty good feel for what ministerial bullying looks like — it’s “coercive, manipulative, and belittling”; it can leave the target “trembling”; it may include a my-way-or-the-highway demand; and people do in fact leave the organization rather than have to deal with the ministerial bully.

If you’re in a situation where you think you’re seeing ministerial bullying, you might want to check out Robert Sutton’s books on assholes: The No Asshole Rule and The Asshole Survival Guide: How To Deal with People Who Treat You Like Dirt. Or, if you’re a minister or supervisor, you might want to read Sutton’s book Good Boss, Bad Boss: How To Be the Best…and Learn from the Worst.

Sigh. Not again.

I got one of those emails today, informing me that a Unitarian Universalist minister has been removed from fellowship. It read:

“The Ministerial Fellowship Committee voted recently to remove the Rev. John Saxon from fellowship for actions and behaviors constituting bullying, creating a hostile environment, and conduct unbecoming a minister.”

A quick web search (including what appears to be his Facebook page) shows John L. Saxon as a professor of public law and government at UNC-CH, retiring from there in 2010. He graduated from Meadville/Lombard Theological School in 2009, serving as hospital chaplain for Alamance Regional Medical Center, beginning c. 2010. He was assistant at the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Raleigh, N.C., beginning in 2010, then later lead minister; he left the latter position in 2017. From 2017 to 2020 he was Executive Director of the Unitarian Universalist Social Justice Ministry for North Carolina, and then apparently from 2020 to 2022 he was president of the organization (online sources are not clear). One brief bio of him says he retired in 2022, so it’s not at all clear where he allegedly engaged in the actions that led the Ministerial Fellowship Committee to remove him from fellowship.

As usual when I publish these announcements, I’m making no judgements on the truth of the allegations. I’m publishing these because up until a few years ago the UUA did not maintain a public list of this sort of thing; and since then it has become increasingly difficult to find out where the accused ministers have worked.

I will make one general comment, though, which is that removing a minister from fellowship for bullying now appears to be more common than removing a minister from fellowship for sexual misconduct. Does this mean I believe UU ministers are no longer engaging in sexual misconduct? No, I suspect it’s simply more difficult for victims of sexual misconduct to come forward. [Plus as I outline in a later post in this series, there are societal factors leading to more bullying.]

First in a series of posts on clergy and bullying — Sigh. Not Again. — What ministerial bullying looks like — What ministers didn’t learn in theological school — When clergy get bullied — The opposite of a bullying boss

What youth engagement can look like

In the last 1990s, I took Prof. Robert Pazmino’s course in teaching practices and principles, aimed at education in local congregations. One of Bob’s memorable insights was that congregations should have a teen voting member on every church committee, including the governing board. As Bob pointed out, not only is that the best way for teens to learn how congregational governance works, it’s also good for congregations who want to figure out how to meet the emerging needs of the rising generation.

This principle holds true for all nonprofit organizations. In 2014, when the Religious Education Association annual conference was in Boston, I went with a group to visit the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative (DSNI). This community group, which served a white-minority low-income neighborhood, had 4 seats on its 25-seat board dedicated to teens. Not only did DSNI benefit from the insights of its teen board members — not only did the teens benefit enormously from this real-life experience — but serving on the DSNI board as a teen provided a direct path into city government for ambitious teens; this helped both the teens, and DSNI, who now had a sympathetic ear in City Hall.

Now Hamilton Ontario is applying this same principle to the public sector:

“When Hamilton [Ontario] first set its sights on bolstering youth engagement, it focused on some of the places it could connect with the greatest number of young people: local universities. After years of working with individual institutions in effective, yet often one-off and ad hoc ways, the city saw merit in striking a long-term partnership with its three core schools—Mohawk College and McMaster and Redeemer universities—with the shared aim of integrating students into public problem solving…. All four partners committed to a five-year pilot program—including funding, time, and even a physical building next to city hall—to turn the seat of local government into a classroom and the schools into extensions of city hall….” [via Bloomberg Cities Network at Johns Hopkins Univ.]

So… now you have even more motivation to get teens on your congregation’s board and committees.