“UUism and Authority Figures”
Rev. Greg Ward
Unitarian Universalist Metro Atlanta North
March 5th, 2006

Meditation
At church we want good leadership.  Leadership that will help secure peace.  Work for justice.  Promote understanding.  Help build a beloved community. 

We realize that we, ourselves, are leaders, when it comes to raising our children, providing for our family – imprinting our values on society and insuring that the common good is a little more common than it has been.  

The church we belong to comes from a great lineage of leaders – those who fought for freedom, modeled integrity and had the courage to stand up to tyranny. 

So we know how important it is that our leadership is effective.  It is important that whatever efforts we can put forward are not wasted.  That they have an impact.  We want not ourselves or our leaders to spend precious moments in this world spinning our wheels or chasing windmills. 

“May God help us.”

That is what Sancho Panza said feeling the same way we did.  Gazing upon his charge and leader, Don Quixote, lying on the ground.  Don Quixote was beaten and discouraged.

Don Quixote, as some of you might know from, “Man of LaMancha” was one of two different men.  He was either the man who dared to ‘dream the impossible dream’  (which the choir just sang) – to triumph over impossible odds and secure justice and love; or he was the man who was caught up in his own dream.  Filled with delusions of grandeur, called to chase windmills and fight imaginary foes.

As Sancho Panza looked down, he wrestled with which man lay before him.  Yes, Don Quixote had passion.  And vision, and eloquence, courage and virtue.  Just like the leaders we want.  Yet he lay beaten silly by the sail of a turning windmill he had attacked, imagining it to be an enemy giant. 

“May God help us,” exclaimed Sancho.  “Did I not tell you, your grace, to look well – that those were nothing but windmills – a fact which no one could fail to see unless he had other mills of the same sort in his head?”

“Quiet, my friend,” Quixote replied.  “Such are the fortunes of war… subject to constant change… I am sure this must be the work of the magician Freston, who robbed me of my study and my books, and who has obviously changed the giants into windmills to deprive me of the glory of defeating them...  But in the end his evil arts shall not prevail against this trusty sword of mine.” 

“May God’s will be done,” was Sancho Panza’s response.

Everyone in this church knows that whatever God’s will is done here it is done by our wisdom, muscle and sweat.  So we’d better choose well and work hard.  From the person in the pulpit to the last space in the pew, this church’s success depends upon good leadership.  And, at the same time, everyone of us has a little Don Quixote and a little Sancho Panza in us.  The part of us that wants to use power – to redress injustice, fight for liberty, secure peace, build a beloved community.   And the part that is wary of how power is used – tired of seeing energy expended fighting windmills instead of injustice. 

How do we bring those two parts together into one healthy church?

Sermon:
Barbara Kellerman is worried.  Like Sancho Panza, she has watched good leaders – even some great leaders – fight windmills and lose.  She has seen them end up bruised and battered.  Feeling ineffective.  Feeling despondent. 

Barbara Kellerman is Research Director for the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.  In a recent paper she talked about how those who look to the future of leadership in higher education are also worried.1  Indeed, how the future of leadership in any part of American culture is a topic of worry. 

‘Why?’ you ask.  ‘What are the windmills leaders are fighting these days?’ you wonder.  Like most windmills, they are not what they seem.   Not armies of evil.  Not enemies of community.  Not giants standing against justice.  Just illusions.   Attitudes.

You might be aware of how prejudice is something of an attitude.  But the windmill I talk about today is a special kind of prejudice.  It is against leadership itself. 

Kellerman points out that leadership in American culture is plagued by three attitudes in particular: (1) Antagonism toward any governing authority; (2) Ambivalence toward representatives of that authority; and (3) Ambiguity about what constitutes effective representation and appropriate leadership.

She cites the origins of our general antipathy toward leadership dating back to our country’s revolutionary heritage.  The founding fathers so despised the king and crown for unjustly ruling over them that they were immediately and forevermore averse to any power centralized in one place.  Such attitudes led to the division of power into branches of government to set up checks and balances. 

We certainly think of this as good.  But it was a wariness of the abuse of power that was written not only into our constitution – but into culture’s DNA.  We need only look at how this seed of checks and balances has grown into the vast bureaucracy it is today to see how our wariness could – and has – grown somewhat unchecked like a cancer on a healthy organism.

The problem that Kellerman points out is that infinite compartmentalizing of power has resulted in an inefficiency so vast that it makes the work of our leaders appear more fumbling and less expedient than eve.  The effect is that it serves to multiply the anti-authoritarian perspective of the observer even more since it will always appear to observers that our leaders are not leading, but simply chasing windmills.  And such suspicions are usually correct.  Modern windmills are hoops that require jumping through.  Many of which are set up by an increasing number of observers to satisfy suspicions of countless special interests.  These special interests don’t trust each other, much less the leadership above them,  leading to each group needing to set up their own special hoop to jump through. 

This overall cultural wariness with leadership has been bred through our individual attitudes being carried into every facet of organization. 

Even churches.  Even Unitarian churches.  Some might say, ‘especially Unitarian Churches.’  But before you cry ‘foul,’ or ‘no-fair,’ it is important to acknowledge, we did it to ourselves.  You see, our government is the way it is because Unitarians helped write the blueprints for the way this country – and therefore our culture – works. 

Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, framers of the constitution – creators of checks and balances - Unitarians.  Paul Revere, Ethan Allen, those who fought in the revolutionary war – Unitarians.  Even Thomas Paine – influential author – was a Unitarian.  This is what he had to say about government and authority in the opening paragraph of his tract, “Common Sense.”

Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher. 2

Now, what you can probably guess is that when Paine was writing this, he was talking about English governance.  But the incredible influence that this tract had meant that the attitude born from this vision was bred into the democratic government that replaced the monarchy.  This platform of anti-authoritarian attitudes is built into the very framework of our country because it conceived by anti-authoritarian organizers.  Namely us.  So it should be no surprise that we built it into our churches as well.

I studied anti-authoritarian tendencies in preparing for this sermon.  What was most interesting to me was when I looked up the description for this attitude in a Jungian Psychological Testing Handbook.  Here is what it said: 

Resents supervision, does not like to be bound by schedules or habits, prefers to do things when they feel ready, appreciation for a certain amount of anarchy, has a need for complete freedom, would rather work for self than a company, questions everything, wants things done their way, prone to behavior problems, gets angry when they don't get what they want, can be subversive, tends to dislike organized religion, fears confinement, values loyalty, liable to challenge decisions, especially when in a group.3

When I first came across that, I had to read that several times.  If someone had handed that to me as a description of Unitarian Universalist Congregations… with the exception of a few words, I wouldn’t have batted an eye.  And I doubt any UU would have either.  In fact, I think, with the exception of a few words, some might regard it as a badge of honor.

“God help us,” Sancho Panza said, as he looked upon his beaten and bruised leader and saw, on the horizon, hundreds of windmills around them.  

I feel compelled to apologize now, to the new members.  I really should have said something about this in UU101.  Before you joined.  I’m sorry if we lured you in here under false pretenses.  So in the interest of complete disclosure, let me inform you of something else you should really know.  As a member of this UU congregation, you are now officially a heretic. 

In the past, when I’ve mentioned to people outside our faith that we are heretics, they usually start to slowly back away from me - their eyes darting toward the nearest exit.  When I tell UUs this, who aren’t aware of our history, their reaction is much different.  They usually think hard for a moment, as though they’re trying to comprehend what I’m saying.  Then their face changes and they say, “COOOOOOL!!:

And it is cool.  We have a heritage that deserves great pride.

Our forebears and our ancestors were the ones that repeatedly stood up for religious freedom, the right to exercise reason into our interpretations of scripture and not settle for what church authorities told us.  The saints and prophets we revere were the ones that were innovative with religious ideas and spoke out against religious edicts when they were applied maliciously or unevenly.  The origins we recognize as ours were made of people who stood up against powers so vast that they could – and often did – kill us for challenging their rule.  We stood up against the inquisition when it was killing non-believers.  We stood up against the Catholic church when it was selling indulgences.  We stood up against the Protestant church when it was preaching the depravity of man.   We stood up against the church of England when it forbade the notion that God loves all people and all people are saved.  We stood up against rigidity of doctrine and we stood up against discrimination of every stripe in every age. 

And in the midst of all that standing, many leaders fell.  Many gave their life in order to speak truth to power.  Many were burned at the stake, thrown in prison, put themselves repeatedly in harms way so that you and I could exercise a free and responsible religious search.  Ours is a history rich with accomplishments we can never forget, accomplished by courageous sages we can never forsake. 

But from them we have inherited not only a legacy that is hard to live up to, but an operational system that is hard to live with.  We have, much like our country’s governance, a system that desperately needs good leadership to function well.  At the same time, it is a system that is incredibly hard on good leaders.

I found Barbara Kellerman’s findings on the worrisome future of leadership in American culture to be something of a prophecy to pay attention to.  Her findings regarding leadership in colleges and universities can also be readily applied to churches. 

“Tomorrow’s leaders are discovering multiple obstacles to success including more influence by outside agencies over policy, more objectives to be met, greater ambiguity of goals, less consensus, more fractionalization of the campus into special interest groups, less sense of community, bureaucratization of staff and programs, declining fiscal resources, uncertain competing technologies, and fewer opportunities for growth and development.”

“Three themes emerge from the studies on leadership in higher education.  Theme one is that colleges and universities are in trouble.  Theme two is that the single most important element in solving their problems rests in finding an effective leader.   Theme three is that conditions are making it difficult for such a leader to want to lead or to be effective when they do.”

After almost fifteen years as a leader in UU congregations, I have found this to be one of the most difficult scenarios in which to carry the badge of authority.  Because leadership in our institutions is often fraught with so many windmills and because there are never enough leaders, the expectations placed upon the leaders we do have is very high.  Even to the point of demanding perfection.

Listen to this internet commentary on dissatisfaction with the minister:

Are you tired of your minister?
Do you want someone more perfect for the job?
Someone who will preach exactly fifteen minutes and answer every concern in the church?
Someone who will condemn bad behavior but never challenge anyone?
Someone who will work from 8:00 AM until midnight – and find time to take care of the janitorial responsibilities?
Someone you can pay $50 a week who will wear good clothes, buy good books, drive a good car, and give about $75 a week to the poor?
Someone approximately 28 years old who brings 30 years preaching experience?
Someone with a burning desire to work with youth and who spends all of his time with senior citizens?
Someone who smiles all the time with a straight face because he has a sense of humor that keeps him seriously dedicated to his work?
Someone who makes 15 calls a day on congregation families, shut-ins and the hospitalized, and be in the office when needed?

If your minister does not measure up, simply send this letter to six other churches that are tired of their minister, too. Then bundle up your minister and send him to the church on the top of the list. In one week, you will receive 1,643 ministers and one of them will be perfect.

Have faith in this procedure.  One church broke the chain and got its old minister back in less than three weeks....so don't break the chain. 4

Of course, there are some congregations who imagine their churches would be much better if their minister would just unwind a little – not be so uptight.  Consider this article from Larknews.com that describes such a situation. 

BOZEMAN, Mont. — An associate pastor and church sound man pulled a Weekend-At-Bernie's-style scheme, keeping their church's senior pastor in the pulpit six weeks after his unexpected death.
   
"I thought he was going through a personal renewal which mellowed him," says one member after learning that pastor Lenny Dillon had been dead since July.
   
Dillon, 57, died of a stroke while vacationing with his wife in Canada. She went along with the scheme because she couldn't bear to let her husband go. It "comforted me to see him preaching, even though I knew he was dead," she says.
   
To the trio's amazement, the church flourished after the change. Rancorous disagreements stopped. People felt ministered to and cared for.
   
"He seemed so happy all of a sudden," says one woman. "That peace spread through the congregation."
   
Barry and Linda Cox attended several counseling sessions with the dead pastor and said it vastly improved their marriage.
   
"He was such a good listener," she says.
   
Embalmed and dressed in a three-piece suit, Dillon was propped against the pulpit every Sunday. The associate stitched sermons together from past sermon tapes. The sound man turned down the lights. After service the associate and sound man helped Dillon shake hands in the foyer. They put sunglasses on Dillon and made up a story about botched laser eye surgery.
   
Though the ruse has ended, some people in the church want the corpse back.
   
"Best two months this church has ever had," said one man. 5

So maybe this is really the unexplored solution to our leadership problems – either ship me off or keep me around after I fall over dead.  Prop me up at the congregational meetings.  Let me light the chalice or say opening words – at least I’ll be brief.

But I don’t think that’s going to solve our problems.  Because it’s not just about our professional ministry.  It’s about all leadership.  The good part about us setting up such a vast system of checks and balances is that we guard against power being too localized and unmonitored and thus reduce possible abuses of power.  The difficult part of that same outcome is that we have spread power so far and wide in our systems of governance that it requires virtually every person in the organization to make it work. 

And the added difficulty is that we make taking those leadership positions so unattractive because of our natural penchant to challenge authority.  It is a much easier to stay outside of the organized authority and cast stones.  And we can defend that role as the essential place that our ancestors played in protecting our current freedoms. 

There is a story told of the father of American Univesalism, John Murray and how he dealt with challenges to his authority.  One Sunday morning, while preaching, a rock came sailing through the window and just missed his head.  No account of the story ever says whether the person who threw the rock was a member of the congregation.  They only say that he went over to where the rock landed, picked it up and studied it.  Then he said, “This argument is solid and weighty… but it is neither rational nor convincing.”

It is true that our history as heretics and people who challenged the authority of their day is something we can be proud of, it is something that we allow to go unchecked at our own peril.  If we continue to practice, on ourselves, the same kind of anti-authoritarian attitudes that our forebears practiced on their religious adversaries, we will become just what it is we worship: history.

Let me put the bad news a little more succinctly: If we - as a denomination and as congregations - continue to be so hard on our leaders – especially our lay leaders, we will never get up from that beaten down position we have taken on the field of religion.  We will never battle the real giants that are threatening the common good as long as we continue to attack windmills. 

The good news is that our history says that we are more than anti-authoritarian.  And we are more than people who stand up against things.  We are heretics.  In the literal sense, heretic means simply, ‘one who chooses.’  Our forebears became great not because they were always standing against others, but because they chose to stand for values that united them in common cause with reason and tolerance.  We stood for ideals that sought to unite people across differences.  We stood for love when it was under attack by hate.  And we stood for each other. 

In a minute we are going to sing our final hymn - # 114 “Forward through the Ages.”  Undoubtedly many of you will recognize that as an older hymn, Onward Christian Soldiers.  A hymn that was hard to bear because it spoke of soldiers marching as to war – carrying the cross of Jesus against all foes to victory of the one doctrine. 

Unitarian minister, hymnist and leader, Frederick Hosmer rewrote that hymn because he knew war and getting your enemies to conform to one doctrine is not what Jesus stood for.  He wrote about having gifts of different measure but hearts of one accord – about moving on together to a shining goal. 

Frederick Hosmer was a heretic because he saw the difficulties that were plaguing him and he chose a different way.

So can we choose a different way.

To the Glory of Life.

Copyright Wardswords, 2006