Michigan Unitarian Universalist Social Justice Network

LGBT WELCOMING AND ADVOCACY SURVEY

July, 2010

The report summarizes the findings of a survey developed by the Michigan Unitarian Universalist Social Justice Network (MUUSN) to measure the views of ministers, religious education directors, social justice leaders and LGBT members of MichiganUnitarian Universalist congregations regarding their LGBT welcoming and advocacy practices.

BACKGROUND

The attached survey was developed with input from: Joan Burleigh, a leader of the First Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Ann Arbor’s Interweave group; Kate Warner, Chair of this congregation’s Social Justice program; and Lisa Presley, the Executive Director of the Unitarian Universalist Association Heartland District. Surveys were sent to74 ministers, religious education directors,and justice leaders from 26 UU congregations. Out of 74 people, 28 surveys were completed by individuals fromthe following 17 congregations: UU Fellowship of Central Michigan (Mt. Pleasant); UU Community of SW Michigan (Portage); All Souls Community Church of W. Michigan (Grand Rapids); UU Church of Flint; Harbor UU Congregation; UU Church of Lansing; Marquette UU Congregation; New Hope Congregation (South Lyon); People’s Church of Kalamazoo; UU Church of East Liberty (Jackson); Berrien UU Fellowship (St. Joseph); Birmingham Unitarian Church; Community UUs of Brighton; UU Church of Farmington; People’s Church of Ludington; First UU Congregation of Ann Arbor; and Northwest UU Church of Southfield.

Response Breakouts

Survey Group / Returned
Surveys / Not Returned / Return
Percent / Comments
Ministers / 5 / 17 / 23%
RE Directors / 12 / 14 / 46%
Justice Activists / 10 / 16 / 38%
LGBT Members / 1 survey
(completed by 2 persons) / NA / NA / Ministers were asked to give surveys to LGBT members. 1 RE Director also identified herself as LGBT.

Survey Results

Q1. How welcoming do you believe your congregation is toward LGBT people and their families?

Not Very: 0 Average: 5 (18%) Very: 23 (82%)

Q2. Are people from LGBT backgrounds active in your congregational life?

Yes: 26 (93%) No: 1 (3.5%) Not sure: 1 (3.5%)

Q3. Does your congregation make its welcome visible to people from LGBT communities in your area, e.g., by outreach, literature or communicating with LGBT groups?

Yes: 25 (89%) No: 1 (4%) No Answer: 1 (4%) Yes and No: 1 (4%)

If so, describe: “Literature at our church, financial support for Pride Week to the university GLBT office”; “Rainbow flag on outdoor signage, LGBT pamphlets in literature rack, participate in community LGBT activities, staffed a table at Breaking the Silence event and at GLBT film festival. Had several GLBT panels and a service with a transgendered minister”;

We have donated to a local LGBT youth program. Display LGBT literature from local groups at social action table.”; house PFLAG group meetings. Are official welcoming congregation”; “While I think we could do a little better on reaching LGBT groups in our area, we always make sure that we use signage and ads to show through symbols and we are a welcoming congregation”; “We publish LGBT news in our newsletter. There are welcoming words in our order of service, newsletter, website, etc.”; “we host a monthly GLBT social event”; “We regularly hosted gay straight alliance movie nights. Our youth group was called Welcoming UUs. We have a banner on our building and a rainbow on our pulpit”; “literature, stories for children, sermons”; “support LGBT community events (LGBT Pride sponsor), LGBT anti-discrimination ordinance policy stance”; “We partner with PFLAG chapter for events – many of our members are involved (PFLAG is the only LGBT organization in our county). We recently hung Standing on the Side of Love banner on our church and we include Welcoming Congregation materials on our website and other outreach material”; Work with DAC and PFLAG. Welcoming congregation; We display the LGBT symbol on our outside bulletin. Two of our members are volunteers with the Outreach Center in Benton Harbor”; “literature, advertisements in LGBT publications, presence at with LGBT affirming institutions”. “SSL public witness (Oct 2009) and Welcoming Congregation (Oct 2009); “We are a delivery point for Between the Lines. We host Gay AA meetings. Had a booth a Pridefest”; “We just voted 43 for, 1 abstain and 1 against becoming a welcoming congregation”; “It’s on our website. We could do more outreach. We’ve done some. We display the rainbow flag at the entrance to the building. We display Between the Lines”; “Rainbow banner outside, regular Interweave meetings. Many events, public presence at community events”. Rainbow flag at entrance, literature and presence at local gay functions, active in two area protests of homophob threats”; brochure, presence at Pride Outfest, involvement with partner churches in Inclusive Justice, participation in ally training offered at U of Michigan, etc. Active in state-wide organizing groups as a congregation”.

Q4. Does your congregation seem comfortable with conversations about LGBT experiences and issues?

Yes: 23 (82%) No: 3 (11%) Not sure: 2 (7%)

Comments: “Hosted LGBT film series and have opened our pulpit to LGBT speakers to educate congregation about experiences and issues”; “We have two members with transgendered relations (son, nephew); “For a lesson on UU marriage ceremonies (middle school) I (RE Director) invited a straight couple and a lesbian couple to come talk to the class about their ceremonies”; “We include LGBT issues/references in several services. Our 2010 annual church retreat dealt with LGBT issues”; “A few are not (comfortable) – especially gay male issues. We are in the middle of reaffirming our stance as a welcoming congregation after completing the program 12 years ago. I hope that this will help bring any issues to the forefront of our discussions.”; “Discussed openly during visioning and goal setting sessions”; Some of the congregation is very comfortable discussing LGBT issues, but other members are still growing in this area”; “We have sponsored and contributed to many of their events”; “speakers, sermons on issues”; “forums on gay issues not well attended. Some people have declined to invite others to join Interweave e-mail list. There people in leadership positions who are very open to talking (about) issues”; “Some are very comfortable, others are not. The trend is good. We (Interweave) works to build bridges within our congregation, through Our Whole Selves for adults class, forums, activities around Standing on the Side of Love petition drive. As in any congregation, the level of comfort and interest varies widely from person to person. Officially, we are comfortable, individually some ‘don’t get it’. We have a very strong Interweave chapter”.

Q5. Has your congregation formally become a “Welcoming Congregation”?

(17 congregations surveyed)

Yes: 14 congregations (82%); No: 3 congregations (18%)

Note: One “no” respondent reported their congregation was in “in the process” with a goal of achieving this designation by June 2011. Another “no” respondent asked for guidance in how their congregation could attain this status. (This was provided.)

Q6. Does your congregation and/or its social justice committee work to promote social justice on behalf of LGBT persons?

Yes: 21 (75%) No: 2 (7%) Not sure: 2 (7%) “Not on systematic basis”: 1 (4%)

“We do some”: 1 (4%) “Not as much right now”: 1 (4%)

Although three-fourths of those surveyed indicated their congregation works to promote social justice on behalf of LGBT persons, one “yes” respondent said “we could do more”. Two said “no”. Five didn’t answer the question with a direct yes or no, but wrote qualifying statements. This documents a potential for doing more LGBT social justice activities in UU congregations.

Q7. Would one or more members of your congregation be interested in being part of a MUUSJN statewide LGBT advocacy group that would periodically meet by conference call to plan advocacy on behalf of persons from LGBT communities?

Yes: 6 (21%) No: 1 (4%) Not sure: 21 (75%)

Comments: “I’m sure there are, but wouldn’t want to speak to them”; “I am sure that we complete the Welcoming Congregation program again this coming year that many folks would be interested! I would be interested in the results of this survey as well as further information for our congregants on how to be involved on the District level. Thanks!”; “One third to one-half of our congregation is gay. One half the Board of Trustees is gay”; “We are a very small fellowship and I regularly announce MUUSJN activities and try to find someone willing to join, but it seems that doing so is one more thing we’d like to do but can’t make the time or effort to do so”; “I will forward info to LGBT advoc`tes.”; “I’ll contact some folks over the summer and add to our retreat agenda. Thanks Randy!”’ “High support and donations for SSL banner (which has since been stolen), host GLBT coffeehouses, party and donations to Ruth Ellis”; “Best for you to discuss this with our pastor”; “I think we’d find interest (in LGBT advocacy Task Force). I think we should advertise it rather than asking one or two we think might have interest”; “MUUSJN needs to work in partnership with other LGBT advocacy groups including Equality Michigan, Michigan Roundtable and Inclusive Justice in setting goals and strategies for advocacy”; “I’m excited that this is getting started”.

Concluding Remarks:

1.  Leaders from 65% (17 of 26) Michigan UU congregations responded to this survey.

2.  Eighty-two (82) percent of Michigan UU leaders believe their congregations are welcoming of persons from the LGBT community. This correlates with 82% of UU congregations surveyed reported a Welcoming Congregation status.Interestingly, 82% of leaders reported that their congregations’ were comfortable with conversations regarding LGBT experiences and issues.

2. A high percentage (93%) of UU congregations documented as having people from LGBT backgrounds actively involved in their congregational life.

3. Forty-two percent of UU religious education directors completed this survey. This high response from RE directors suggests a powerful potential forcommunicating and/or engaging youth within our denomination to address LGBT issues.

4. The survey documented that UU congregations reach out to persons from LGBT communities in a variety of ways. Congregations potentially could expand their memberships by discussing and applying such LGBT outreach strategies.

5. For the purposes of this survey process, coordinating with ministers was not a particularly effective method of reaching out to LGBT congregational members. It should be noted that July often is a month when UU ministers are on leave from their regular duties.

6. Seventy-five (75) percent of leaders indicated their congregations worked to promote social justice on behalf of persons from LGBT communities. However, several respondents qualified their answers and suggested that more needed to be done. Six individuals were identified as potentially available to participate on a MUUSJN Task Force to address LGBT justice issues; some respondents offered to help recruit others. This survey has set the stage for the creation of a LGBT justice task force through which activists in Michigan’s UU congregations can coordinate and work with other LGBT advocacy organizations to address issues.

For more information, contact:

Randy Block, Director,

Michigan UU Social Justice Network

4220 Arlington Dr.

Royal Oak, MI 48073

248-549-5170

E-mail: