Bob Richards
Julie, Thanks so much for coming to the event. As I noted in my invitation and per Cory's introduction, my intent was not to offend. I'm so sorry that I was not able to find you or even know you well enough to ask for your help in advance in planning and assuring it would be maximally inoffensive. I'm a wooden person trying to carry a silver chalice. In high school, I had several close non-LDS friends and wanted to link arms with everyone I could get to know. I'm afraid I lacked the time, courage, maturity, and confidence required to be the ideal bridge builder and includer. As Kathy Kipp Clayton so well put it, I sadly admit that my focus was mostly on myself.
You came! Thank you so much! I appreciatively want to learn from your experience. Hopefully, I'm getting better, with age, at inviting criticism and feedback--what Stephen R Covey referred to as the breakfast, lunch, and dinner of champions. I so admire you for being willing to share your reactions. Help us learn from this experience. I think I can begin to appreciate your sensitivity with regards to the venue, etc. which were graciously offered, at my request; the prayers voicing heartfelt gratitude and appellations to heaven, spoken in an adoring, authentic, language. A committee certainly could have helped find a more neutral venue and more diversity in participants' backgrounds (I was so grateful to all who did participate in Sunday's event and felt so uplifted, personally!)
The Claytons, though now emeritus, did serve in high positions in the LDS faith. I know they were very anxious to not offend and to speak only to broadly shared values, needs and concerns. For example, I was so impressed by Whit's describing what Christians refer to as "the golden rule" as taught and practiced by all major world religions, enunciating each. I could take a dose of Kathy's positivity and seeking to be more considerate of others every day as a form of vitamin L (love). Again, I'm sure my lenses are simply too invisible to me to see but were the Clayton's guilty of any intentional stepping on toes? Humbly speaking, I couldn't detect any missteps with their messages or tone. Personally, I was ecstatic.
I struggled with the set theory implied by non-denominational (I think 50 years ago the term would have implied a basic belief in God as our creator). I'm always slow to catch up but I know, at least, that simple categories are disappearing. Ecumenical now seems to mean spiritual, regardless of religious affiliation or doctrinal beliefs. I want to promote spirituality, feel a tremendous need for more of it in my own life. I happen to be happily tied to a specific religious affiliation, so be it. I've always known many individuals whom I feel are much more spiritual than I who share none of my specific religious doctrinal beliefs but share most, if not all, of my core values related to being as brothers and sisters--individuals who are wonderfully thoughtful and considerate of others, who are giving, outward focused, caring, and willing to help to the extent aspire to be.
If such a thing as joint ecumenical (perhaps I'll have to give up on using the word worship?) is of mutual interest to you and a portion of those surviving in 5 years, please, Julie, (and others wanting to help) commit to joining me and Shaun (who has already signed up) in recruiting an appropriately representative planning committee that will pull off the goal of ecumenical in a less offensive way than this first "pilot" attempt. As with many aspects of life, sadly, I doubt it would be possible to achieve ecstasy for everyone.
I felt and still feel very inadequate in trying to organize this ecumenical devotional by myself, but I really wanted it to happen. I never pretended to be doing it perfectly. Please, let's not throw out the potential benefits of holding an even better event (baby) because of my inadequacies and lack of knowing who and how to involve others (bathwater). Thanks again for sharing your reactions and concerns.
Bob
|