BECOMING A SANCTUARY OF RIGHT RELATION
November 12, ,2006 The Reverend Anne Felton Hines
There is a story that has become a bit of Unitarian Universalist “folklore” that perhaps I’ve even shared with you before.
It seems that in one of our congregations back in the late fifty’s or early sixties, there was a man who had a particularly unusual way of expressing his dislike of a sermon. He would stand up during the sermon and slowly begin taking his clothes off, one piece at a time, until he was completely naked. And then he would stand that way until the sermon ended.
What’s most amazing about this story, however, isn’t the man’s behavior; what’s amazing is that no one in the congregation made him stop. They apparently didn’t want to infringe on his individual right to free expression!
I have no idea if this is a true story; but I would bet that if not completely true, it’s at least based in fact, with perhaps some embellishments along the way. Because every congregation I know, of every faith, has stories of inappropriate or uncivil behavior.
I remember an experience I had a number of years ago when I was the guest preacher at one of our churches. I’d finished my sermon, and as was the custom in that church (and used to be here), I then opened it up for questions or comments. A couple of people stood and asked questions or made insightful comments. And then a woman got up and began expounding on some issue that, I learned later, was her particular passion. I tried to get a word in, but she would not be interrupted. I even said “thank you” at some point, hoping that would encourage her to end her monologue and let someone else speak; but it was useless.
Suddenly someone from the other side of the Sanctuary yelled out, “Sit down and shut up!” – to which the woman replied, “I can talk as long as I damn well please!” I looked over at the lay worship leader for some help, but he had simply sunk down in his chair with his face buried in his hands. Needless to say, whatever steps I’d taken to create an atmosphere of sacredness and inspiration were completely destroyed!
Such behavior during “talkbacks” is one of the reasons most ministers refuse to include such practices in our worship: There’s just too much risk that it will become a “playground” for people’s incivility – a barrier to the creation of “right relation” in our congregations.
And “right relation” is exactly what a religious community should be about: A place where each of us can expect to be welcomed no matter our spiritual journey; where we can feel safe expressing our thoughts and feelings (when such expression is done in an honest and responsible manner!); where we commit to honesty in our relationships with one another; and where we know we can disagree, and still practice Love as “the spirit of this church.”
Yet according to Gilbert R. Rendle, a consultant for the Alban Institute, too many congregations – of all faiths – are “plagued with uncivil behavior. Where we would hope to find dialogue,” he writes, “we find instead competitive debate. Where we would hope to find honest owning of feelings, we find instead anonymous communications. Where we would hope that leaders would deal with clear opinions and facts, we find instead rumor and hearsay.” He suggests that such behavior is rooted in an assumption that “as individuals, we don’t have to defer to the needs of the group.”
But a religious community needs people willing to go beyond their individual needs at times, to consider the larger ministry of the church, and how their particular areas of concern connect to that.
A religious community must be a “harbor” against incivility – a place where we can feel “safe” from hurtfulness. Rendle suggests that, “We need to be ‘called back’ to behaviors appropriate to our faith community,” he says.
One of the ways that churches are doing this is by creating a “covenant of right relations” – a “behavioral covenant” which reminds us how we wish to be treated, and how we agree to treat one another. And it is far healthier to begin the process of such covenanting before the need for one arises out of some conflict. The best time to create a “Covenant of Right Relations” is when “right relations” already exist – as I believe they do here at Emerson.
Covenants are different from rules or laws. When the latter are broken, we expect there to be some sort of compensation in the form of financial restitution, punishment, etc. But a Covenant goes much deeper. It’s something agreed upon by those bound by it; it’s a promise we make to one another, similar to marriage vows. So when a Covenant is broken, we seek understanding of why it was broken, and a re-commitment to the covenant. Says Speed Leas, senior consultant with the Alban Institute, “Our aim is to help one another to be faithful, to…create environments in which the possibilities of reconciliation are increased.”
Imagine what our world could be if nations entered into Covenants of Right Relation!
Those of you who have participated in our Small Group Ministry program at Emerson know something about group covenants, as each group creates a covenant in their fourth session together. These covenants are agreements each person enters into freely – promises of how they will treat the group itself and how they will treat the other members of the group. Some of the most common covenants include a promise to make the SGM a priority in their life; to let the facilitator know if they aren’t going to be able to attend; to treat what they hear from the other members with confidentiality; and to listen with compassion, and speak with honesty, at all times. When the covenant is broken, it is hoped that the person is reminded of the promise they had made initially, and asked to re-commit to that promise. It is part of what has made Small
Group Ministry so successful here at Emerson and in other UU congregations around the country.
Essentially, behavioral or “right relation” covenants are ways to intentionally embody our seven UU Principles in our everyday relationships with one another, and with the community beyond these walls. Indeed, that’s exactly how the UU congregation in Riverside developed their Covenant. It has seven points, and every one of them begins with a specific UU Principle, and statements of how those Principles will be manifested in their relationships.
The Covenant developed by the Unitarian Church of Victoria, British Columbia is called a “Policy on Good Relations,” and defines how each person will treat themselves, their minister, their church staff, their Board, other members of the church, and the community at large.
The UU congregation of Galveston Island, Texas, on the other hand, adopted a one-paragraph covenant. But within that paragraph they promised how they would communicate with one another, how they would listen, that they would “assume good intentions,” “be sensitive to possible conflicts,” “work toward solutions,” strive for “mutual respect,” honor boundaries, and “respect and support diversity.”
Every behavioral covenant in our UU congregations is different, and there is no one model that’s better than another. What’s perhaps most important is the process that a congregation goes through in creating their Covenant. That is where the relationships are deepened, and the practice of “right relation” takes shape.
But there is another area of “right relation” that has confronted faith communities in the past few years, and that has to do with safety – not only the safety to express our ideas, but safety from sexual abuse and harassment. And this is much more difficult to talk about.
A number of years ago, our denomination joined many others in taking a serious look at the number of ministers who were discovered to have had inappropriate relationships with members of their congregations. It wasn’t only that in many instances, the minister and the parishioner were often married to someone else; that would have been serious enough. But it was also often the case that the minister had been in what’s called a “pastoral relationship” with the parishioner – he or she was acting as counselor to the object of their affection. And that meant that there was an imbalance of power, and that the minister had exploited his or her position of authority.
For years, of course, people in positions of power and authority – such as clergy – have had affairs with those who didn’t hold such power, and nothing has been done about it. But about 15 or 20 years ago, churches and synagogues began to acknowledge the damage such behavior has had – not only on the victims of such abuse, but on the congregations as well. And so today, we clergy understand clearly the boundaries we must keep in place between ourselves and members of our staff and of our congregations.
But sadly, not all abuse in religious communities occurs between adults. Too often, the victims of inappropriate and abusive behavior are children – the most vulnerable among us.
It’s easy these days to pretend that all sexual abuse of children by adults has occurred in the Catholic church. But what we have begun to learn in recent years is that exploitation of children can happen in any faith community, even Unitarian Universalist. And the perpetrators can be anyone – even those we least expect. That was the case in one of our UU congregations in the Pacific Northwest: The offending adult was a long-time member of the church who would never have been suspected of sexual abuse. It was devastating for all concerned, including the congregation.
Insurance companies have been paying attention to this for quite some time now, and have been urging churches to put in place some safeguards against such abuses. But it’s not only a liability issue; it’s an issue of “right relations;” it’s an issue of “the worth and dignity of every person;” its an issue of justice and compassion, and ultimately, of spiritual integrity.
When parents bring their children to our churches, they have every right to expect that their children will be safe – free of experiences that could damage their sense of themselves as sacred and sexual beings.
And, when adult members of our churches volunteer to teach our children, or work in any capacity with the children and youth of our churches, those adults deserve to expect that they will be safe from accusations of abuse that are unfounded.
Both expectations are imperative if we are to be the kind of “beloved community” that we profess to be.
That is why our Unitarian Universalist Association has developed a “Code of Ethics for Adults Working with Children and Youth.” It’s why the Liberal Religious Educators Association – the professional organization for UU R.E. directors and coordinators – has taken so seriously the development of guidelines for congregations in addressing the prevention of abuse. And it’s why your Board of Trustees here at Emerson has recently adopted an “Interim Safe Congregations Policy,” to be used as further study and dialogue occurs.
Three members of our Board – Lynne Masuhara, Chuck Moore and Kirsten Rosselot – formed a sub-committee to explore the issues of safety confronting our children and teachers. They read material produced by our insurance company and by our denomination. And they then submitted a proposal to the Board, with input from our R.E. Coordinator, Marlene Everingham.
They learned that some congregations perform criminal background checks on anyone considering working with children and youth; but probably more churches simply ask their R.E. volunteers – as well as any staff working with children – to sign a “Code of Ethics,” as well as a statement affirming no past convictions of sexual crimes. This of course doesn’t protect the children or the church’s liability as much as a background check would; but it is considered a reasonable step toward creating a congregation that is safe.
So this is what your Board has agreed to as our first step. Every person who works with our children and youth – whether as a teacher, mentor, nursery caregiver, the minister, etc. – will be expected to read and sign a Code of Ethics. In part, this document contends that, “There are no more important areas of growth than those of self-worth and the development of a healthy identity as a sexual being. Adults play a key role in assisting children and youth in these areas of growth.” It goes on to declare that, “leaders will refrain from engaging in sexual, seductive, or erotic behavior with children and youth.” Sexual harassment and other behavior that would constitute “verbal, emotional or physical abuse” is also prohibited.
Everyone working with our children will sign a statement affirming, among other things, that they “have never been convicted of, or pled guilty to, any sexual crime;” or “pled guilty to a lesser charge after having been charged with a sexual crime;” or “have engaged in any form of child abuse.”
In addition, we are now requiring two adults with the youngest classes; and no adult will be left alone in a building with a child or youth. This is to protect both the child and the adult.
As Marlene wrote in an e-mail to parents yesterday: “It may be difficult for some of us to think of written policies and requirements when we feel part of a beloved community which can take its children's safety for granted. But our denomination is asking that we consider doing so.” I would add to that that our UU Principles demand that we do so. Marlene is inviting any parent who has concerns about this issue to attend the first part of the RE Committee meeting after church next Sunday, the 19th, in Room 1. And after the service today, members of the Board will be available back here in the Sanctuary for conversation.
I am told that Masai warriors always greet one another with the question, “How are the children?” That is the question we must always keep in mind. How are the children, and how are those who care for them? Are they safe? Do they know they are cherished? We need to enter into a dialogue with one another; and it needs to be a dialogue that is the beginning of a larger conversation about how we want to be with one another – what kind of “covenant” we are willing to enter into so that what we offer here is truly a “Sanctuary” that is safe for all our children and adults, a Haven of Right Relation.
I invite you to participate, with honesty, openness, courage and with great hope. In this way will “every corner” of our beloved church home, as the hymn suggests, “bloom into a shrine.”
Amen.
© 2006 Anne Felton Hines. All rights reserved.
