Did Rev. Diane Miller and the MFC endorse Rev. Ray Drennan's anti-religious bigotry?
Robin Edgar
I am going to put you all on the spot.
Let's be democratic about this and hold a little straw poll vote...
As I have said before, my formal letter of grievance of February 14th,
1996, that UUA President John Buehrens arbitrarily dismissed as
unworthy of any investigation but none-the-less forwarded to the UUA's
Ministerial Fellowship Committee shared my concerns about Rev. Ray
Drennan's clearly derogatory and openly hostile labeling of Creation
Day as a "manipulative and secretive" cult, his quite literally "in
your face" sneering assertion that my claimed revelatory experience
was nothing but a "psychotic experience" and his angry insistence that
I seek immediate psychiatric treatment, and his sneeringly derisive
dismissal of my religious beliefs as nothing but "silliness and
fantasy". This letter of grievance not only aired my grievances in
considerably more detail than the above condensed version but pointed
out how Drennan's conduct clearly violated UU principles and purposes.
The official response to this letter of grievance from the Ministerial
Fellowship Committee's Executive under the directorship of Rev. Diane
Miller was to dismiss my grievances by saying that Rev. Ray Drennan's
behavior, as I very accurately described it in my lengthy letter of
grievance, "seemed to us to be within the appropriate guidelines of
ministerial leadership."
Here are links to the UUMA's Code of Professional Practice and
Guideliness for the Unitarian Universalist Ministry.
http://www.uuma.org/Documents/code.html
http://www.uuma.org/Documents/guide.html
I think that it is safe to assume that either the latter or both of
these documents are the "appropriate guidelines of ministerial
leadership" that Rev. Diane Miller was referring to.
So here are my two questions that I am asking you to answer in my
straw poll -
1. Do you believe that Rev. Diane Miller and the UUA's Ministerial
Fellowship Committee was in fact justified in saying that Rev. Ray
Drennan's conduct, as described above and in much more detail in my
letters of grievance, is in fact "within the appropriate guidelines of
ministerial leadership". A simple YES or NO answer will suffice but
you may qualify your answer if you wish.
2. If your answer to the above question is NO (as I trust it will be
in most cases) please answer the simple multiple choice question -
A - Rev. Diane Miller and the MFC Executive are apparently ignorant of
the content of the UUMA's Guidelines and Code of Professional Practice
B - Rev. Diane Miller and the MFC Executive are probably lying
C - Rev. Diane Miller and the MFC Executive are apparently delusional
D - Other (Please specify)
I look forward to seeing the results of this straw poll.
Adios,
Robin Edgar
Here is the full text of the first letter that I received from the
Rev. dianr Miller and the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee in
response to my initial letter of grievance which is a bit too long and
detailed to post here.
This text is from an OCR scan of the actual letter -
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
25 Beacon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Ministerial Fellowship
Committee
(617) 742-2100 FAX (617) 367-3237
April 25, 1996
Mr. Robin Edgar
15 rue Lafleur Apt. 11
Verdun, Quebec,
CANADA, H4G 3C3
Dear Mr. Edgar:
Your letter to President John Buehrens, along with various attached
documents, was referred to me. You requested that your complaint be
conveyed to the
correct authorities within the Association. I serve as Director of
Ministry and as Executive Secretary of the Ministerial Fellowship
Committee (MFC), the body charged with oversight of ministers.
Your complaint was shared with the minister, which is a standard step
in our procedures. It was then reviewed by me with the chairperson of
the MFC. We did not see, in the volume of material you sent, that your
complaint is within the purview of the MFC.
While we recognize that your expectations of ministry are not being
met in your relationship with the Rev. Ray Drennan, we did not see
cause to further investigate the minister's conduct. It seemed to us
to be within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership.
We hope that you will find ways to pursue your spiritual insights
which you and others will find both satisfying and harmonious in the
pluralist theological environment of these times.
Sincerely,
Diane Miller
MFC, Executive Secretary
copies:
The Rev. Ray Drennan
Krystyna Matula, President, Unitarian Church of Montreal
MFC Executive Committee
So, as you can see, the MFC (under Rev. Diane Miller's "oversight")
"shared" my complaint with Rev. Ray Drennan, whatever that means, and
then made no further investigation at all of my very serious
grievances but chose instead to whitewash Rev. Drennan's clearly
abusive misconduct by saying - "It seemed to us to be within the
appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership."
Here is my two page response to Rev. Diane Miller's initial dismissive
letter -
Robin Edgar
15 Lafleur apt. 11
Verdun, Quebec
Canada, H4G 3C3
Rev. Diane Miller,
Director of Ministry
Unitarian Universalist Association
Friday May 10, 1996
Dear Rev. Miller,
This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated April 25,1996. In
this letter you stated that you "did not see" that my formal complaint
about Rev. Drennan's unprofessional and demeaning conduct towards me
was "within the purview of the MFC" yet it is President John Buehrens
who was personally responsible for delivering my complaint of
unprofessional conduct to you. Why would President Buehrens refer my
complaint to you, the Executive Secretary of the Ministerial
Fellowship Committee, if it was not clearly within the range of
authority and responsibility of the MFC to deal with such complaints?
I must admit that I was somewhat skeptical that my serious complaint
about Rev. Drennan's deplorable conduct would be responsibly dealt
with by a committee whose name states that is devoted to ministerial
"fellowship" given the common definition of the word "fellowship". It
is quite regrettable that your response to my complaint would indicate
that my skepticism was well founded.
Your statement that Rev. Ray Drennan's conduct "seemed to us to be
within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership" is rather
disturbing. It gives every appearance of being an attempt to
"whitewash" Rev. Drennan's unprofessional and demeaning conduct
towards me and, quite frankly, it invites a sardonic and sarcastic
response. In the interests of maintaining a civil relationship with
you and in an effort to live up to the stated principles of our chosen
faith I will, for the time being, resist the temptation to provide
such a response. I will, however, say the following - the letter of
complaint addressed to the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal
dated Wednesday February 14, 1996, contains an accurate and
unembellished description of Rev. Ray Drennan's comportment towards
me. Those statements attributed to Rev. Drennan in the said letter
that are contained within quotation marks are as close to word for
word transcripts of what was said to me by Rev. Drennan as is humanly
possible, and my descriptions of the manner and/or tone of voice in
which these statements were made are totally reliable.
The statements attributed to Rev. Drennan are not fabrications nor are
they in any way the products of a deluded "psychotic" mind as some
people might have you believe. If Rev. Ray Drennan has denied making
any of these statements he is, to put it succinctly, lying. If he does
not deny making these statements then I do not see how his deplorable
comportment towards me could be considered to be "within the
appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership."
There are several aspects of Rev. Drennan's unprofessional and
demeaning conduct that are of considerable concern to me but the most
important and potentially damaging to me are the following:
1. Rev. Drennan has described my religious activities as a "cult" and
he has clearly qualified his use of this word by saying that he means
"a manipulative and secretive religious group". Besides being false
this allegation is potentially extremely damaging to my reputation,
within and outside of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, and could make
it next to impossible for me to engage in interfaith activities should
it spread beyond our congregation. While it is true that this damaging
allegation was made during a private meeting between myself and Rev.
Drennan and there were no other witnesses to this it does not change
the fact that I cannot allow Rev. Drennan, or anyone else, to make
such false and damaging statements about me without demanding a
retraction and an apology. It is also clear from Rev. Drennan's
repeated assertion that he is the "first one being honest" with me,
and the "only one being honest" with me, that this and a number of
other false and damaging rumours about me are circulating within the
Board and Executive of the Unitarian Church of Montreal. I would be
the first to say that it is likely to be only a small minority of
people who share, and apparently genuinely believe, these damaging
rumours but they are in highly influential positions within our
congregation. These deplorable rumours, and other hear say and
innuendo about me, may have already played a role in the Board's
refusal to allow Creation Day to be celebrated in Channing Hall for a
second time in October of 1995. Surely it is not possible that it is
actually "within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership"
for a Unitarian Universalist minister to make false and potentially
extremely damaging allegations about a member of his or her
congregation.
2. Rev. Drennan has described my revelatory religious experience as
"your psychotic experience" which, besides completely denying the
validity and truthfulness of my revelatory experience, clearly implies
that I am suffering from a severe form of mental illness. I suggest
that you look up the definition of the word "psychotic" or "psychoses"
in a good dictionary or encyclopedia of psychology before you decide
that Rev. Drennan's clearly hostile labelling of my revelatory
experience as "your psychotic experience" is "within the appropriate
guidelines of ministerial leadership." It is clear to me that Rev.
Drennan fancies himself to be qualified to make such a diagnosis but I
would not insult amateurs of any variety by describing his repeated
misguided attempts to psychoanalyze me as "amateurish". I will say
that these attempts were unprofessional in the extreme, not only in
terms of Rev. Drennan's role as a minister in the Unitarian
Universalist church, but also in terms of someone who apparently has
formal training in the domain of family therapy.
The potentially damaging nature of Rev. Drennan's allegation that I am
suffering from psychoses compelled me to seek out a qualified
psychiatrist who could determine whether or not this was in fact the
case. I saw Dr. Levitan of the Queen Elizabeth hospital outpatient
clinic on two occasions during which I provided him with a detailed
description of my revelatory religious experience as well as most of
the claims that arose from it. He found that "no traces of psychoses
are evident" and referred to me as "obviously sane" during our first
meeting and asked me if I wanted him to send a letter thanking Rev.
Drennan for sending a "perfectly sane person" to see him at the
conclusion of our second meeting. Dr. Levitan saw absolutely no reason
for me to see him for any further analysis or therapy and it was
abundantly clear that he was not particularly impressed with Rev.
Drennan's skills in the domain of psychiatry.
As a final note I will say that while I most certainly appreciate Dr.
Levitan's confidence in my overall sanity I am not sure that I would
even refer to myself as being "perfectly sane"; however, I would say
to you, as I said to him, that I am as sane as anyone who has had a
direct revelatory experience of God can be expected to be under the
circumstances and I have good reason to believe that I am considerably
more sane and rational than a number of those people who claimed
profound revelatory religious experiences in the past.
3. Rev. Drennan scoffingly referred to the claims arising from my
revelatory religious experience as "silliness and fantasy" before I
could even begin to explain the exposition which illustrates, and thus
serves to validate, most of my claims. He also made several other
sarcastic and derisive comments about my revelatory religious
experience and the claims with arose from it throughout our meeting of
Thursday November 9, 1995, as well as on other occasions. I will
spare you any further details (most of which are already contained in
my letter of February 14) but I will ask you if it is genuinely
"within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership" for a
Unitarian Universalist minister to openly mock, ridicule, and deride
the deeply held personal religious beliefs of a member of his or her
congregation regardless of the minister’s privately held opinion
of their validity? I would hope that this is not the case, yet this is
what your letter would indicate if taken at face value.
I will cite a few other examples of how Rev. Ray Drennan's conduct
towards me can, in my own opinion, hardly be considered to be "within
the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership" however the
foregoing three points should be enough to persuade you to reconsider
your response to my formal complaint about what I have very good
reason to consider to be extremely unprofessional, demeaning, and
abusive comportment towards me by Rev. Ray Drennan. I will add that
your response gives the impression that Unitarian Universalist
ministers are not subject to the guidelines of stated Unitarian
Universalist principles. I have already pointed out how Rev. Ray
Drennan's comportment towards me makes a complete mockery of most of
the "Seven Principles" which Unitarian Universalists covenant to
affirm and promote" but I would like to remind you of a little red
pamphlet titled "What do Unitarian Universalists believe?". This
pamphlet begins by stating, "We believe in freedom of religious
expression. All individuals should be encouraged to develop their own
personal theology, and to present openly their religious opinions
without fear of censure or reprisal." It should be obvious that Rev.
Ray Drennan's harshly critical and vehemently disapproving, to say
nothing of demeaning, response to my effort to openly present my
personal theology to him, a personal theology which is based on direct
personal experience of God synthesized with considerable meditation,
deliberation, and research, clearly constitutes severe and unjustified
censure of my religious opinion.
This little pamphlet then goes on to say that, "We believe in the
toleration of religious ideas. All religions, in every age and
culture, possess not only an intrinsic merit, but also potential value
for those who have learned the art of listening." Rev. Ray Drennan's
behaviour is demonstrably intolerant of the religious ideas that I
presented to him in spite of the fact that virtually all these
religious ideas have clear precedents in the religions of this and
other ages and in our own and other cultures as the exposition of
pictures which I showed him clearly demonstrates. Rev. Ray Drennan's
labelling of my religious ideas as "silliness and fantasy" before I
had even begun to explain them to him and his repeated interruption of
my presentation with negative, derisive,
and mocking comments would tend to indicate that he has not yet
learned the art of listening and it is quite evident that be had
absolutely no interest in recognizing either the intrinsic merit or
the potential value of the religious ideas that -I presented to him.
This small pamphlet goes on to say, "We believe in the never-ending
search for Truth. (Please note the capital T) If the mind and heart
are truly free and open, the revelations which appear to the human
spirit are infinitely numerous, eternally fruitful, and wondrously
exciting." Rev. Ray Drennan's negative and demeaning comportment
towards me clearly indicates that neither his mind nor his heart is
truly free and open to the revelation which appeared to my spirit and
his commitment to the "never-ending search for Truth " is called into
question by his attitude towards the truths that I have tried to
present to him. It is true that he is not the only Unitarian
Universalist minister who has failed-in this regard but he is the only
one who has launched a personal attack on me and has openly mocked and
ridiculed my claim of a revelatory religious experience.
I could go on to point out to you a number of other ways in which Rev.
Ray Drennan's unprofessional and demeaning comportment towards me
violates the stated beliefs, principles, and ideals of the Unitarian
Universalist Association, and I will do so in future if I should find
it necessary; however, it should now be within your capacity to
clearly perceive how Rev. Drennan's deplorable conduct is damaging not
only towards me but to the ability of the Unitarian Universalist
Association to credibly present itself as a religious community which
believes in freedom of religious expression and which, in Rev.
Drennan's words, "honours diversity of theology".
To bring you up to date with my case you should be aware that on
Sunday, April 21, 1996 I brought this regrettable matter to the
attention of our congregation as a whole during the "Sharing Joys and
Concerns" segment of the Sunday service. I can assure you that it was
not a "joy" by any means to have to stand up in front of the
congregation and be obliged to inform them about Rev. Ray Drennan's
deplorable conduct towards me. I handed out a two-page letter to
concerned members of the congregation after this and subsequent
services. (I am enclosing a copy of this letter for your perusal.) You
should also be aware that I warned the Board of our church that I
would take such a step if Rev. Ray Drennan refused to volunteer a
formal apology to me. A copy of my letter addressed to President
Krystyna Matula, which was read during April's Board meeting, is also
enclosed. Perhaps the Board thought that I was bluffing and that I
would not have the nerve to bring such damaging allegations about
myself to the attention of the congregation as a whole because,
needless to say, Rev. Drennan did not apologize nor has he offered any
form of apology to date. This obstinate refusal on the part of Rev.
Drennan to apologize to me in any way, shape, or form, for his
demeaning and damaging comportment towards me is quite disturbing, and
may be seen as unprofessional behaviour in itself.
One former Board member, who is involved in human rights issues
offered to act as a mediator between me and Rev. Drennan in this
matter. I readily accepted this person's offer however Rev. Drennan
turned it down. No further progress has been made in this matter since
my announcement to the congregation on April 21 and I have had no
further communication with Rev. Ray Drennan or the Board.
I expect Rev. Ray Drennan to either confirm the truthfulness of my
grievances about his comportment towards me or formally deny them. If
Rev. Drennan confirms that my grievances about his comportment towards
me are, to use his own terminology, "true enough" then I must insist
that he formally retract his demeaning and damaging statements about
me and deliver a formal apology to me and that he must do this before
the congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal during an
upcoming Sunday service at which I am present. I must also insist that
he provide me with a written copy of his retraction and apology for my
personal records. This is the first and most essential step that he
must take if he wishes to move towards reconciliation and healing in
this regrettable affair.
Should Rev. Drennan choose to deny the essential truthfulness of my
description of his comportment towards me, something that would be
highly inadvisable, then I will have to take steps to pursue this
matter further; steps that ultimately will not reflect well on him or
on the Unitarian Universalist religious community in general should it
continue to fail to respond to my serious grievances about Rev. Ray
Drennan's unprofessional and demeaning comportment towards me in a
manner that may clearly be seen to live up to both the letter and the
spirit of clearly stated Unitarian Universalist principles. This is,
after all, "a matter of principle" in every sense of the word and I
must inform you that because I know that I am right and, more
particularly, because I know that I have been wronged, I will not let
this matter rest until I have made every effort to ensure that justice
is done and peace is restored.
Sincerely,
Robin Edgar
Here is Diane Miller's self-described "wise" response -
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
25 Beacon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Ministerial Fellowship Committee
(617) 742-2100 FAX (617) 367-3237
May 20, 1996
Mr. Robin Edgar
15 Lafleur Apt. 11
Verdun, Quebec
CANADA, H4G 3C3
Dear Mr. Edgar,
I regret to learn that you have chosen to escalate the strife between
you and the Minister and the Board of your church by voicing your
complaint during a worship service and handing out a two page letter
to the worshipers on more than one occasion.
You clearly feel wronged. That is unfortunate. However, taking
comments made in a private conversation and publicizing your demand
for an apology, you have made very serious public charges against the
Reverend Mr. Drennan. In my opinion, and that of the Ministerial
Fellowship Committee, his comments as quoted by you do not warrant the
description of "extremely unprofessional and demeaning" responses.
I am glad to hear that you were evaluated as "perfectly sane" by a
psychiatrist. I am also glad you have had the profound experience of
revelation and a direct experience of God. I am further glad to know
you have thought so deeply about the principles of Unitarian faith.
These facts do not, however, justify your demands. The CUC, the UUA,
and the Montreal congregation have no obligation to support, promote,
study or approve of your religious perceptions in the course of their
institutional work or as individuals.
I cannot think of any example of a mystic, a prophet, or a religious
leader who evidenced intractable anger at not being understood, as you
seem to be doing. I would hope that a direct experience of God might
direct your energy away from this dispute toward profound concerns.
Your letter confirms to me the wisdom of the MFC's decision to close
your complaint.
Sincerely,
Diane Miller
Executive Secretary to the MFC
and Director of Ministry
copies:
Revs. Marjorie Skwire and Gene Pickett, MFC
The Rev. Ray Drennan, Minister
Ms. Krystyna Matula, Board President
I never responded to this final official brush off by Rev. Diane
Miller and the Ministerial Fellowship Committee preferring to try to
obtain justice at the congregational level. I think that these three
letters should provide more than enough "context" for you all to be
able to make an informed decision about the self-described "wisdom" of
Rev. Diane Miller's and the MFC Executive's response to my totally
legitimate and very serious grievances about Rev. Ray Drennan's
abusive clergy misconduct.
Please submit your "votes" and any related comments.
--
soc.religion.unitarian-univ is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
u...@iecc.com, and see http://sruu.iecc.com for the FAQ and posting policy.
Stephen Voss
> I never responded to this final official brush off by Rev. Diane
> Miller and the Ministerial Fellowship Committee preferring to try to
> obtain justice at the congregational level. I think that these three
> letters should provide more than enough "context" for you all to be
> able to make an informed decision about the self-described "wisdom" of
> Rev. Diane Miller's and the MFC Executive's response to my totally
> legitimate and very serious grievances about Rev. Ray Drennan's
> abusive clergy misconduct.
Robin I think you are out there to say the least, IMHO.
THAT BEING SAID(assuming your reflections regarding the other peoples
comments are accurate and since the newspaper article was never
contradicted I will assume this))
I think the conduct of your minister towards you, the harsh
language used and the complete lack of compassion or respect
is uncalled for.
I think your celebration is probably no more goofy than the
various pagan/naturalist celebrations that get official sanction
and is probably less obnoxious.
What is interesting is they allowed you to have this celebration once.
Ok maybe people dont have support for you but there is no reason
for them to be hurtful. If I were in reverends place I probably would
have given you a quiet table to put your literature on and maybe let you
have your thing on a day the UU wasnt being used. If noone shows up,
then there is no harm. Let you use it on the same terms as any other
member based group.
I think though its time to throw in the towel. Your not going to
get an apology from the reverend and the UU leadership thinks
hes just dandy. I think its time to either go back to church
or quit and form your own congregation.
UUBuddha
>or quit and form your own congregation.
I think he has already taken your advice. He is listed as a contact person for
a new church start on the American Unitarian website
(www.americanunitarian.org).
-Craig
Robin Edgar
While I find your comments of some interest I will not respond to them
in this thread as I would like to reserve this thread for actual
voting in my grass roots "straw poll" that was presented in my
original post. I would appreciate it if both of you would actually
exercise your right of conscience and vote either YES or NO to the
very straightforward question that I asked about Rev. diane Miller's
"oversight" of my grievances arising from Rev. Ray Drennan's behavior
which I consider to be demeaning and abusive clergy misconduct arising
from his anti-religious bigotry. You may also answer the follow up
multiple choice question and add any other commentary about how you
voted but I would ask you not to sidestep the question.
All other people reading this post please refrain from posting
responses that are not actual votes in this straw poll. Feel free to
start a new thread if you want to make other comments though. I will
happily answer them. I will probably start a new thread myself to
respond to Steve's and Craig's responses. BTW You need not be a UU to
vote in my straw poll but please indicate if you are not a UU if you
do decide to vote. It would be good to see some outside perspective.
Sincerely,
Robin Edgar
Robin Edgar
Robin Edgar
by voting in my "straw poll" about Rev. Diane Miller's and the
Ministerial Fellowship Committee's incompetent and complicit "wink and
a nod" that effectively endorsed Rev. Ray Drennan's clearly demeaning
and otherwise abusive clergy misconduct?