Wayne Walder (WW):

We often try to fix things as Ministers. We might see, a broken world, broken people, or difficult circumstances and we try to facilitate, support, create, and improve the situation. Yet the world always requires fixing. So many of us try harder, we might even work longer hours. We get sick or burnt-out as we continue to help. We don’t take time for real self care. Our families suffer.

Thomas Moore (TM):1

The first thought that occurred to me when you said that was that I usually work, (when I work in Ministry) in the model of the spiritual teacher. In many different traditions the spiritual leader is not really called to fix the world. That’s not what he or she does. Rather that person is called to be a holy person - a person who has a special degree of contemplation or reflection. They have the ability to see the world in a certain way and have shaped their life and a personality out of that. People come to that person to be in their presence because of what he/she has achieved and who he/she has become. So the idea is not to bring your problems to this person. I mean you wouldn’t do that to so many of the spiritual leaders of the world. You don’t bring your problems to them. What you do is you come to them seeking a depth, a vision and a personality that has been really transformed by preparation. This is the model for me. I’m not saying that a Unitarian Minister ought to suddenly become a guru in the mountain, I don’t mean it that way, but I think that there is something in the model of the holy person that could be used. I bet there would be less burnout too. Less burnout because the point of spirituality is not to keep giving out and doing the impossible, but to constantly “be” somebody. By just being yourself and pursuing those things that are of great interest to you, you are changed. That in itself is a great use to people. So I guess I suggest, you don’t always have to do something. Being someone can be healing for both your ministry and the people you minister too. A “way of being” can be one of the most useful things we can do.

(WW):

Many of us see a broken world needing attention. We also recognize we need to model a different way to work in the world. But we are not always clear about how to do both.

(TM):2

Yes of course, the solution there I think is one that I’m very interested in. I don’t know if this applies to your situation or not. I think there’s been a big mistake in separating the spiritual from the worldly, the earthly and the ordinary. We think if we could only retreat from this horrible materialistic world and find some spiritual bliss that everything would be fine. I don’t think it works that way. I think the way it works is that the world itself is the source of spiritual nourishment. Everyday life, the things of the world and everyday pleasures are really what we are looking for. You know, this is our goal ultimately. And when we don’t separate those things (spirituality and everyday life), there is a better chance of us understanding them both. We know trying to create a utopian world is a never ending struggle. If we try to make that happen, we will be unhappy and we will likely do a lot of damage in this world. We can work on ourselves within the broken world.

(WW):

Thank you. People in the West seek entertainment when they first come to religious community because they experience it everywhere. I call it spiritual entertainment. And many of us know that to become a deeper community we have to work with sexuality, anger, race, love, insight, greed, conflict and other dark knights of the soul. How do we make the switch between people’s expectations of religious community and the real thing, without scaring them away?

(TM):3

That’s really an interesting question. I mean the first point is that I don’t think it works, (spiritual entertainment). And I’m saying this from a great deal of experience as a writer - especially writing about things of spirit. It’s a mistake to think that your first job is to respond to people’s expectations. If we think that people will like us or come to us if we find out where they are and what they want, we are mistaken. I don’t think that’s the right approach. I don’t think that’s what most successful people bring to their work in almost any sphere. People do that all the time, but I don’t think that’s the most effective way. I don’t know if you’ll see the parallel, but I see it in my work as a writer. I write books that are on subjects I’m very interested in and I write them the way I want to write them. I don’t try to get an audience; I think I know what I have to do to get the audience. I think I know what it means to entertain a reader, in that sense. But I don’t do it. And I find the publishers I work with, both in books, in magazines and in other places too, want me to give people what they want. I’m working right now with public television, it’s the same kind of thing. They think they know what people want and they want to pander to people. They want to give them almost more than they want. They are almost out of their minds wanting to succeed and therefore want to find out exactly - almost to poll people to find out what they want, and give it to them. It is incidental if something of value sneaks in. But giving people what they want, is not really it, that idea is very low on my list of priorities. So, I’m in conflict with my publishers all the time, I think it’s parallel to what you’re describing. I don’t think we should try to respond to what people need because first of all, you’re never going to get it right. Publishers don’t get it right; media people can’t get it right. And if they can’t do it with all of their ability, the Ministers are not going to get it right. There’s no way to really do that because there’s no way that people are really going to get turned on by that. People usually get turned on by things that keep them in place – that really don’t challenge them. And as I see it at least, my view is that people today will be attracted by sentimentality - by sentimental ideas especially in the spiritual realm. I think it’s a big mistake to go that route. You can get large numbers that way. In my field there are writers who, as far as I can see, have nothing at all to say but they know how to touch people by sentimentality. I don’t think that really satisfies the person. I think it would be better to trust that if you develop a good spiritual product people will come. People will come for it. I think that’s a better way than to try to guess what they want and then give it to them. I agree with you about entertainment. It is a really big thing. It is another way of saying sentimentality. People don’t want the substance they want to be entertained, I see that. There’s a certain success you can get by entertaining people, but it does not really satisfy the person receiving it or giving it either. So, I would recommend that the Ministers give up that project of trying to find out what people want. Stop trying to keep people entertained and rather go back to what I said in the first question. Rather, be somebody! Be somebody who is worth being around! Have some vision and some thoughts that are substantial. Thoughts you have worked at for a long time and that you have incorporated into who you are. And people will be drawn to that; they will go a long distance to find somebody who is like that. They are not drawn to the entertainment aspect of it, I think they are drawn to a person who is actually a reflection of what they speak about. It’s a rare thing. I think if you move in that direction you’re better off.

(WW):

There is a lot of talk in our movement about “Minister Excellence” and “Minister maturation”. All of us want to grow up, and most of us want to be better Ministers. The tension is, we often don’t know how to do it. There are not many people who can do graduate level teaching in “Ministerial maturation”. The result is, we are often seduced by the next new thing, the pop ideas or the new sexy technique.

(TM):4

The question then maybe is, how to prepare yourself? How can you become the kind of Minister that you aspire to, that you admire and hold up for yourself as an ideal. And, the problem is that people are very susceptible to the latest idea and superficial notions of what that might be, certainly I have found that to be the case. Therefore the only solution is to deepen the place from which your people think and live. That’s the only solution I can think of – to go deeper – to give a more solid foundation. Now, I try to do that, if I use myself as an example – when I write my books. Almost everything refers back to the history of ideas – almost all of it. Especially the history of theological, spiritual and psychological ideas. So I go back into the history of religions and I read these old writers who I think have been totally neglected and have wonderful things to say. Just going into the past doesn’t necessarily deepen. But the cream has risen to the top throughout history and so there are some very substantial resources back there. And, that’s the way I try to give grounding and depth to my work. I don’t try to work off the top of my head, I don’t read the current writers. Everywhere I go, people say “Have you read this person?” “or that person?”, and I say no, I feel ignorant – because I don ‘t even know who they are. But I’m not interested in that because I recognize the ephemeral nature of this recent work. It doesn’t go deep enough. One way that Ministers could get a deeper foundation and not be susceptible to pop religion and psychology is by being exposed to really solid thinkers and writers in their own history. I am sure you are already exposed to basic texts in the world religions. Can you go deeply into them? I don’t mean a book report. Really get into them, to really grasp what the essentials are. And finally, can you go into other areas like depth psychology or literary studies or art history or some other area where you could get a deeper, a better foundation for what these writers were doing? I think the problem is, if you go at the spiritual realm and you don’t have much of a foundation, both breadth and depth, you’re going to be susceptible to these passing fads. I know this is a huge task, but I think it could be broken down to something that’s manageable. I think if people could just be given a little bit of guidance as to how to deepen the place from which they think, and from where they do their work, my guess is that they wouldn’t be going after these passing fads.

(WW):

Are you talking about building a deep foundation of spirituality?

(TM):5

Yes. I think so. I bet you have wonderful thinkers in your own tradition. Reading great ideas is very pleasurable and it’s amazing how it will transform the way you think. It’s so easy too; you can read whole ideas in a half hour. That means you could read a text 2 or 3 times in a week just to get into it. Now there you go, there you have some start. Have you ever read some depth psychology? Some of the Freudians? Or Jungians? And if you haven’t then maybe that will give you some psychological foundation so that you have a little more self awareness and are not so drawn to things. Now, I’ve been teaching my daughter, using her as an example. She’s 17 years old. In the past 3 months, she’s read Freud’s Interpretation of Dreams and she’s read Jung’s Memories, Dreams and Reflections. She’s not reading huge amounts; she’s not a big reader, she just reads the pieces I give her. And she has become incredibly sharp at being able to distinguish what’s solid from what is crap – what is really superficial. And it amazes me how quickly she got these ideas. So, what I’m trying to say is Ministers can continue to educate themselves so they can get more of an edge in their thinking. This will make them less susceptible to the passing fads. The only way you’re going to resist the religious fads, is to have a mind that has been given some substance. If you have some of this sharpness you can make better decisions and judgments.

(WW):

Thank you. There’s one last question I have. I wonder about your thoughts on competition, jealousy and fear among Ministers?

(TM):6

I’m not quite clear. Are you saying you’re hesitant to celebrate your own membership. Is that it?

(WW):

Yes. We are not always good at celebrating each other. We have a shyness or a fear of being criticized by our colleagues. There is of course, a wonderful support system among our colleagues, AND a significant amount of jealousy, competition, and mistrust. People are shy about bringing their insights into the light.

(TM):7

For what reason? Jealousy?

(WW):

Jealousy, Competition, and fear there’s going to be a class of Ministers that are considered ‘good’ and a class of Ministers that are going to be considered ‘not so good’.

(TM):8

I would think that those emotions, like jealousy and envy and fear, would come out when people themselves are not certain about their own work. I mean if they were confident in their own work they would not feel these things so much. It may also mean the opposite as these things usually do – but it could be that people are judged and not honored for their contributions. I wonder if your people have a way of honoring yourselves. Jealousy, competition and fear are very concrete and they can’t be resolved in an hour of therapy by yourself. So I wonder if there’s enough honour and recognition given to the Ministers – do they get enough? People doing this work need recognition and it can’t just be theoretical and intellectual, it’s got to be real and concrete. This might be something to think about, I don’t know how that works in the organization, but I think it could be a signal that people are not recognized enough, that there’s not enough honour given. If they had everyone’s confidence, they’d feel more free and more easily able to see and enjoy another’s success. It’s a problem with any organization. When you spoke, I was thinking of a group I was with when I was in my 30’s and 40’s – a group in Texas that was a group of psychologists trying to create an outgrowth of Jung’s psychology. We were not a formal group but we knew who was in our group. One thing I really noticed, there was a great appreciation for each other. There was a great wish for each other’s success. We all wanted the others to succeed, I think. That was one thing that was really strong. This was unusual for me because I had been teaching at a University where the opposite was the case. At the University there was all this envy and jealousy and whenever you succeed, your job was threatened. It was a very strange situation. I was in that position myself, I saw some need, I responded to it. I had very large enthusiastic classes. And it shocked me that my colleagues hated that – they wanted me to fail. And I thought what kind of an organization is this where the people in it want me to fail? It’s a very strange situation. And that’s where the envy and jealousies came through. It’s so different from this other group – just the opposite. What was the difference? It’s really hard to say. One difference in the Jungian group was that we were all engaged in creating something. So whatever it would take to create that kind of an organization would be the solution to the problem you are presenting. I think the University professors were working very hard. They knew the challenges, they had to publish to survive and all of that. And they weren’t getting any recognition – there was no recognition really whatsoever. There was no visible appreciation for what they did. I think that was maybe part of the problem. Whereas this other group, we were supporting each other. It’s hard to know where it all starts, or how you can get that to happen. But I think that change of climate really has to take place.

(WW):

Well, several parts of our history come from the University tradition.

(TM):9

So, some way of honouring each other. I remember one of the things we did . When I stuck my neck out where the world thought I was crazy, I would get a letter from one of my friends in this group telling me how great they thought I was. They told me how much they appreciated my ideas. Those letters and that support meant everything to me. I didn’t have to have it from others in the world, but if I got it from my peers, it meant everything. And it kept me going. What I’m saying, I think is, you might consider putting together some “habits of appreciation”. If people could understand how important it is to hear appreciation for their work, in a very real way, they might do it. I don’t mean just standing up and giving someone a gold watch, that kind of thing. But in a very real way, saying: “I’m behind you,” “People may not understand what you’re doing, but I’m really behind you on this.” I think that kind of thing within a community would help tremendously.

(WW):

Thank you. I could have a much longer conversation, but our time is up.

(TM):10

There is something I wanted to ask you. We have a very prominent Unitarian church just down the street from us. And I have spoken around the country to many Unitarian churches, communities and I feel very much at home. I just get up there and I give my usual talk, and people come up to me and say, we didn’t know you were so Unitarian. I’m just being myself, it’s not like I’m trying to adjust in any way. I realize that I fit so well into the thinking of the Unitarian community generally. I really appreciate their presence, my daughter goes to the youth group faithfully every week , it’s doing wonderful things and I go whenever she asks me to offer some support. The side that I don’t understand, and there’s kind of a negative twist to this is, there are a lot of jokes about Unitarians. The jokes all talk about how the Ministers want to be everything to everybody and that leaves them without much definition for what they’re doing. Or people say, “I really like the ideas especially in the politics and in the cultural battles, this is where I want to be”. “But, I don’t feel solid spiritual guidance, solid ritual, I don’t find any real prayer”. These are the things that I hear. I wonder, is this true everywhere?

(WW):

Are you asking if we are dilettantes, a little bit of this and a little bit of that and a lot of nothing? Is this the criticism you started the question with?

(TM):11

That’s right.

(WW):

We have a wide breath of information and resources within our tradition. I believe it is a wonderful part of our heritage. Sometimes we forget, we are afraid, or we feel we do not have time to go deeply into this heritage. Maybe our challenge is now to focus and embody that information. Then we can really speak about it, not from the point of view of the academic or the entertaining, but rather how it fits into and changes our lives.

(TM):12

Well I think it might fit if it is embodied in the person who is teaching it. That’s what I was saying about the Minister as the model of the holy person rather than the one who has techniques or skills. If you incorporate wisdom or spirit into yourself, and are transformed by it, people will notice. I don’t think personally – and this is based on my own experience – I don’t think it’s necessary to have vast knowledge of all these different resources. What I have to be able to do, what you might consider, is to notice how “what you are learning”, melds with “what you already know”. Because then what we know and what we learn can come together as a new dimension of “who we are”. When I do that, I’m not trying to find one more thing to use as an example. I’ve become deeper. What I discover also helps me give more colour and depth to what I already know and can teach. And, that is a huge difference. Now, I am going to accuse myself of being a dilettante sometimes. Some of these people doing research in Christian Mysticism hate when I’m writing these books because they think what I’m doing is too superficial. The mistake they’re making is that you don’t have to flaunt this intellectual understanding of the whole thing to make it your own!!!

(TM):13

I think the criticism I get is parallel to what Ministers get. It could be based on a jealousy that you’re talking about. Because people who do this academically, are not very secure. I’ve seen this in the academic world; they have to demonstrate that they know so much all the time. Knowing something is not incorporating it.

(WW):

Thomas, thank you very much.