Ministry Days closed yesterday with the traditional address from the President of the Association, Bill Sinkford. Sinkford's second and final term as President is ending with the General Assembly so this was our last chance to speak with him. Bill Sinkford is well beloved from the ministry. Among many other things we were encouraged by and supportive of his urge to the movement to return to a "language of reverence" in our faith.
Here are some talking points from his speech and questions afterward.
Bill spoke about a new marketing campaign for the association called, "Standing on the Side of Love." This is a values based marketing plan that leads with our faith principles. Bill told us the initiative for this campaign grew out of the shootings in Knoxville last year when the congregation there powerfully affirmed in the wake of the violence that they would not retreat from the liberal positions and support of gays and lesbians that had enflamed the shooter but that represented the core of our faith.
Bill spoke about Unitarian Universalist congregations in Africa. He made a trip there last year. He responded to a question about homophobia in Africa by saying that this needs to be a point of dialogue between American and African churches. But he pointed out that the UU congregation in Uganda is the only church in the entire country that is gay and lesbian affirming.
In response to the future of the movement, asked by a young minister (she identified herself as "Gen X") Bill Sinkford responded that he couldn't imagine the future, that the movement was in young people's hands, and that he wouldn't be surprised if Unitarian Universalism becomes something he isn't entirely comfortable with. Good for him. (And good for us if we are able to continue to change radically).
He described a study he has been doing on the cost of theological education and although his study was incomplete his conclusion is likely to be that our movement needs to invest much more in theological education than we have resources available. He said he would be handing on his work in this area to the next President.
It was a good opportunity to speak to a President who has served our movement well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
"He responded to a question about homophobia in Africa by saying that this needs to be a point of dialogue between American and African churches."
Yet another example of denial and avoidance on the part of President Bill Sinkford. . . I wonder if President Sinkford even dared to initiate some serious dialogue about this issue with African U*Us when he was in Africa? The article about U*Uism in Africa in the U*U World made it abundantly clear that the leaders of the U*U community in Kenya and other parts of Africa were by no means accepting of GBLT people. This attitude and behavior clearly disregards or even violates several of the Seven Principles of U*Uism. Are President Bill Sinkford and other U*U religious leaders prepared to seriously compromise U*U principles and purposes in order to have some dubious international "growth" of U*Uism in Africa? Apparently so. . .
If my memory serves me well, and I am pretty sure that it does, President William G. Sinkford has by no means served the U*U movement well when it comes to dealing responsibly with clergy misconduct of various kinds. Far from it. . . AFAIAC President Bill Sinkford and the UUA administration of 2001-2009 repeatedly dropped the ball on this important issue and abjectly failed, if not obstinately refused, to stand on the side of love for victims of clergy misconduct perpetrated by U*U ministers and perpetuated by the UUA and implicated U*U congregations. To my knowledge virtually no restorative justice has actually been provided to victims of clergy misconduct of all kinds, including victims of clergy sexual misconduct, even though the UUA has been promising Restorative Justice For All since before Rev. William G. Sinkford was elected as UUA President. AFAIAC President Bill Sinkford leaves a legacy of neglect and failure when it comes to his record on addressing clergy misconduct.
And UUA President Bill Sinkford's rather dubious U*U "diplomacy" with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is nothing to write home about either, not that this prevented the UUA from crowing about it on the UUA website and in the UU World. I dare say that President Sinkford seems to be awfully quiet about Iran these days for some reason. Perhaps it has something to do with how Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and/or Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei answered his ever so "diplomatic" questions recently. . . What were those questions U*Us ask?
"The reports we receive about the treatment of women and political dissidents in Iran raise questions and concerns for us. Is Iran moving towards allowing its citizens more freedom of choice and affiliation? Is the government working towards equality for women in public life? Are protections being created for citizens who identify with different political parties, religious beliefs, and sexual orientations?"
Sorry, Robin, but the UUA is not expanding in Africa, so your question about the Seven Principles is out of touch with reality. African Unitarianism will be what African Unitarians want it to be, and I hope that Americans or any other patronizing white well-fed people do not attempt to interfere in African internal affairs and development.
Sorry Jaume, but if African Unitarians or indeed ever so capital W White well-fed German Unitarians want to be considered to be Unitarian*Universalists then their religious beliefs and practices need to be fully compatible with the claimed principles and purposes and other ideals of Unitarian*Universalism. I do not consider alleged Nazi Unit-Aryans to be true Unitarian*Universalists and AFAIAC homophobia is incompatible with the established principles and purposes of U*Uism. If African U*Us suddenly decided to stone homosexuals to death or to engage in inter-tribal genocide as in Rwanda would you have the gall to say "African Unitarianism will be what African Unitarians want it to be"? I think not. Or at least I hope not. . .
Post a Comment