I’ve explained some of my personal background with the Youth and Young Adult movements within Unitarian Universalism, so now it’s time to delve into the text of the “Youth and Young Adult Empowerment Resolution” that I will be voting on as a delegate from my congregation at the Unitarian Universalist Association’s General Assembly.

So, first I’ll look at the individual pieces, and then put them together into some general analysis.

WHEREAS the Unitarian Universalist Association Bylaws state that our Association promotes “the full participation of persons in all of its and their activities and in the full range of human endeavor without regard to . . . age”; and

On the surface, this is fine. But I think there is an assumption about what “full participation” means. I would much prefer the bylaws themselves to make some mention of “within appropriate guidelines” when it comes to age, rather than lumping it into the non-discrimination clause — for a ham-handed example, there is quite a big difference between being shut out of an activity because you happen to be African-American than because you’re a minor. Most congregations do have an age requirement on membership, which I personally find completely logical and appropriate.

WHEREAS statement #12, “Support, Integrate, and Retain youth and young adults to keep our congregations vibrant and growing” in the Open Space Technology Process at General Assembly 2007 received the largest number of votes, 773 votes (representing 12.4 % of the votes cast); and

This I find to be a pretty weak argument. The Open Space Technology Process was extremely unrepresentative, given the overcrowding in the “standard” workshops versus the scarcely attended Open Space meetings, and what I have observed to be the over-weighted influence of the Youth and Young Adult Caucuses in Plenary. When you see a huge group of well-meaning youth and young adults swarm the microphone to give a statement for or against a particular resolution, regardless of how many of them have delegate credentials or who are just as active in their local congregations, it is difficult not to be swayed. I speak from first-hand experience, though I will admit I’m a bit jaded.

Secondly, the statement referenced seeks support, integration, and retainment within congregations, which is different from what this resolution is looking for — empowerment on the continental, district and congregational levels of Unitarian Universalism. Without further clarification, I don’t think this can be effectively held up as supporting evidence for passing this resolution.

WHEREAS the future of our denomination benefits from the full participation of youth and young adults to enliven, grow and sustain our Unitarian Universalist movement, principles and ideals, including the use of the democratic process within our congregations and society at large; and

I don’t know what the mention of the democratic process does for this resolution — the Youth and Young Adult Caucuses are already quite powerful at General Assembly. It’s up to individual congregations to set their membership ages, and up to individual youth and young adults to participate at the local level as far as governance is concerned.

But there’s also an assumption in this statement that “full participation” means participating mainly on the political level, and no mention of all of the other aspects of church life — worship, spiritual development, community building, social witness and action, etc. So, how is this statement specifically supporting a need for further youth and young adult empowerment, and is it only limited to political empowerment?

WHEREAS Youth and Young Adult empowerment is an attitudinal, structural and cultural process whereby young people gain the ability, authority and agency to make decisions and implement change in their own lives and the lives of other people to create intergenerational equity; and

For this statement, grouping youth and young adults doesn’t make sense to me. While it is important for our young people to learn to take on responsibility, to assert themselves, and to have a say in the communities to which they belong, there is a large difference between your average 15-year-old and your average 30-year-old just in life experience. This statement, and its call for intergenerational “equity,” to me, discounts completely the real value that can be found in “the wisdom of age.” I do strongly believe that the generations have much to learn from one another, but I also strongly believe in acknowledging the differences in judgment and character development that can come with age.

If the statement called for the integration of the generations, rather than blanket, and I think impractical, equity, I think it would be a much stronger argument.

WHEREAS unique opportunities at the congregational, district and continental level for youth and young adult self-direction create synergy for a larger youth and young adult identity and promote communication and connections between local youth and young adults across the continent;

“Synergy” is one of those double-speak buzzwords that doesn’t mean a whole lot, I think.

But anyway. This statement assumes that “self-direction” for both youth and young adults is a desired goal, without offering any support for the idea. Personally, I’ve seen that wholly self-directed youth programs often consist of “I don’t know, what do you want to do?” There is great benefit to working within some kind of structure or guidelines.

Then there is the idea of the larger youth and young adult identity, not just locally but continentally. Connections with all kinds of people are powerful, yes, but I don’t see adequate mention of the need for strong local programs before going continental. For me, this statement reinforces a desire for the current top-down organization that most people agree is not working.

And again, the needs of youth and young adults are not one and the same here, especially in regards to self-direction.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the 2008 General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association urges the Unitarian Universalist Association, its congregations and district structures to:

I understand a previous version of this resolution had separated out the UUA, the districts, and the congregations. I think there is need for discernment on the differences of the roles of these three levels on youth and young adult programs — this lumping together seems counter-productive. If you don’t have strong programs in the congregations that feed in to strong programs in the districts that feed in to strong national programs, then you have either inadequate programs at all levels due to inefficient division of resources, or you have a top-down program that takes away from the lower levels, and that is limited in access.

1. Invite ministerial support to youth and young adults through inclusive worship and intentional presence; and

I don’t know what “intentional presence” means here, but I think that ministerial support on the congregational level goes without saying. On the district and national levels, I’m not sure what that would look like — another reason to break this out further.

Inclusive worship is also a great thing to aim for — as long as that statement is taken to mean truly inclusive worship that takes all generations into account and not just “pandering” to the Con-accepted models of youth and young adult worship. It has to be a two-way street, where the youth and young adults are also willing to compromise, and put in the time to work with ministers and worship teams. For example, I don’t think it’s enough to have one “youth service” a year in a congregation, where the youth work in a vacuum and “put on a show,” or to have one service at GA or a district assembly run solely by youth and young adults with no ministerial input — that’s still an exclusive model, from the other side, certainly not one that calls for “intergenerational equity,” as stated above.

2. Invest financial support in youth and young adult leadership bodies and programs when viable; and

This seems to me to be code for Cons. I’m not convinced that the Con structure, as it now stands, is worth financial support on any level, especially because they seem to foster an exclusive community of those privileged enough with the time and money to participate. Asking congregations to commit resources to growing dynamite local programs, however, that can then feed in to district and national programs, would be a worthy cause. This statement really needs to be more specific.

3. Provide support for youth and young adult staff and volunteers to receive suitable training and resources, including self-directed anti-racism and anti-oppression trainings; and

This one is a hot-button for me, too. Self-directed youth and young adult anti-racism and anti-oppression trainings, to my mind, do not serve the Unitarian Universalist movement as a whole. I have observed on many, many occasions that solely youth and young adult directed work in these areas fosters more divisions than it heals — between those “in the know” and those outside, as witnessed in Fort Worth in 2005. Especially because most of these programs are only available on the district or continental levels, they are limited in scope.

The important work of anti-racism and anti-oppression is something for all of the generations in our communities, and the youth and young adults have just as much to learn from the older generations as those elders have to learn from the young. Segregating these programs by age does not foster “intergenerational equity,” as called for above, but further divides the generations.

However, I’m all for youth and young adult leadership in developing programs meant for communities to work on as a whole.

4. Attend to the needs of youth and young adult constituents with marginalized identities by providing resources and opportunities within the congregation and at the district and continental levels.

I don’t have reservation about the affirmative action tone of this statement, but I do still feel that more clarification is needed as to the role of and the need for the various levels of youth and young adult support, between the congregations, districts, and continental scopes.

This has mainly been an exercise in thinking out loud — going through this resolution point-by-point has not given me much sense of its overall purpose, as I had hoped. I’ll try to put the pieces together in my next post. As always, I welcome and encourage your input in the comments.