Robin Edgar
15 rue Lafleur apt. 11
Verdun, Quebec,
Canada, H4G 3C3
Dr. John A. Buehrens
President of the Unitarian
Universalist Association
25 Beacon Street, Boston, MA
U.S.A. 02108 Wodensday May 15, 1996
Dear Dr. Buehrens,
You say that the fact that I brought my very serious concerns about Rev. Ray Drennan's clearly unprofessional, demeaning, and damaging comportment towards me to the attention of the congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal during the "Joys and Concerns" segment of the Sunday, April 21, service and the fact that, after the service was concluded, I distributed a letter which called upon the members of the congregation to directly intervene in this matter was "quite reprehensible" and "entirely out of bounds". May I point out to you that the primary reason that I felt obliged to take this step was that none of the clergy or elected representatives of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, the Canadian Unitarian Council, or the Unitarian Universalist Association who I complained to took steps to ensure that Unitarian Universalist principles were upheld and that genuine justice was effectively achieved in this matter.
Mr. John Slattery, President of the Canadian Unitarian Council, made it clear that the CUC could not help me in regards to my complaint about the unprofessional conduct of Rev. Ray Drennan because the CUC "is based on the principle of congregational polity" and that this means that, in practice, "the CUC president, Board and staff do not have the authority to intervene in the internal affairs of any of our member congregations. Only the congregation as a whole, operating within its own bylaws, has the ultimate say in determining how it should conduct its affairs."
You, yourself, wrote that the UUA "does not intervene in local matters unless asked to do so by the congregation's board. They have not done so." The Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal failed to respond to my obviously very serious grievances in even a remotely satisfactory manner, the Board simply acknowledged the "strength of (my) feelings regarding Rev. Drennan's behaviour as well as the depth of (my) belief in (my) revelatory experience" and concluded by lamely stating, "We hereby take note of your views." There was no indication whatsoever that the Board made any attempt to persuade Rev. Ray Drennan to retract his damaging allegations about me and to formally apologize to me for his unprofessional and demeaning comportment towards me, nor was there any apparent move by the Board towards any responsible mediation of this dispute.
Perhaps I should have informed you that, in a letter which Board President Krystyna Matula assured me was read during the April Board meeting (copy enclosed), I formally warned the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal that I would bring my grievances to the attention of the congregation of our church as a result of the failure of the Board to respond to my grievances in a satisfactory manner. Not a single Board member suggested that such an action would be "quite reprehehensible" or "entirely out of bounds" nor did the Board take any further steps to properly address my clearly stated dissatisfaction over its failure to respond in a genuinely responsible manner to my letter of grievance which clearly detailed Rev. Ray Drennan's deplorable comportment towards me. When I aired my grievances to the congregation, more than ten days after my clear warning of this, several congregation members expressed their concern and one former Board member said that "it took guts" for me to air, to the congregation as a whole, the demeaning and damaging allegations that Rev. Drennan has made about me. Not one member of our congregation indicated to me that my action was inappropriate. In view of all the foregoing I feel that I was perfectly justified in airing my very serious concerns to our congregation as a whole.
When the clergy, elected representatives, or the "procedures" of a democratically governed religious community fail to adequately respond to the legitimate concerns of any member of that community then, in my view, they have a clear right, if not a responsibility, to air their concerns to their religious community as a whole. You have said that, "One may challenge privately, and discuss concerns through other channels established by the congregation. One may not behave as you have done." The fact of the matter is that I took the steps you suggest as I have clearly indicated in the letters that I have written. As I wrote in my letter of complaint of Wodensday, February 14, during a meeting with him in his office on February 1, I "privately challenged" Rev. Drennan about his deplorable conduct during our meeting of Thursday, November 9, 1996. Regrettably, Rev. Drennan made it clear to me that he stood by his demeaning words and damaging allegation about me and reasserted that he was "just being honest" with me. It was evident from his attitude that there was no point requesting an apology from him at this stage and I said as much to him. I also made it clear to him that I would take steps to see to it that my grievances about his conduct towards me were addressed. He chose to ignore my warning. I formally aired my grievances about Rev. Ray Drennan's deplorable conduct towards me to the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal in my letter of Wednesday, February 14, 1996, which both you and President John Slattery received copies of, but these very serious grievances were, for all intents and purposes, effectively swept under the carpet by the Board as their written response, and their failure to implement any conflict resolution procedures, clearly indicates. It is the irresponsible failure of the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal to establish appropriate channels through which my very serious concerns about Rev. Drennan's behaviour could be discussed which left me with little option but to bring my grievances to the attention of the congregation as a whole and about the only channel that was left open to me to do this was during "joys and concerns".
It is, in my view, quite reprehensible, to use your terminology, that Unitarian Universalist clergy and elected representatives have attemped to "whitewash" Rev. Ray Drennan's deplorable behaviour, -behaviour which is in obvious violation of several clearly stated Unitarian Universalist aims and principles, and have endeavoured to sweep this extremely regrettable matter under the proverbial carpet. John Slattery had the good sense and political astuteness not to suggest, in any way, shape, or form, that Rev. Drennan's behaviour towards me was acceptable professional conduct by a Unitarian Universalist minister. Even the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal did not overtly condone Rev. Drennan's behaviour although their failure to condemn it may be interpreted as tacit approval of his behaviour, as I pointed out to them in my letter of Wodensday, April 3. You and Rev. Diane Miller, on the other hand, have made statements which have every appearance of condoning Rev. Ray Drennan's unprofessional, demeaning, and damaging conduct.
Regarding my February 14, 1996, letter of complaint to the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal you have said, "I must tell you that my own examination of it leads me to believe that there is nothing in it which warrants investigation." Rev. Diane Miller, after sharing my complaint with Rev. Drennan and reviewing it with the chairperson of the Ministerial Fellowship Committee, has responded, "While we recognize that your expectations of ministry are not being met in your relationship with the Rev. 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." I mailed my response to Rev. Miller on Monday, the day before I received your latest letter, and I am enclosing a copy for your perusal. I would hope that, on further reflection, both you and Rev. Miller will agree that Rev. Ray Drennan's deplorable behaviour, as it is described in considerable detail in my letter of February 14, 1996, can hardly be considered "to be within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership."
I find it difficult to believe that you and Rev. Miller genuinely believe that Rev. Ray Drennan's comportment towards me, as I have described it, is actually "within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership." I can only assume that Rev. Drennan has somehow managed to convince both of you that my description of his behaviour is false. I have affirmed the truthfulness and accuracy of this description in the second paragraph of my letter to Rev. Miller, which you may wish to read, and I reiterate to you that if Rev. Drennan has denied making any of these statements he is lying.
It should be obvious to any reasonable person that it is Rev. Ray Drennan's obstinate refusal to acknowledge the damaging nature of his false allegations about me and his extremely negative and demeaning statements about my religious beliefs; his failure to retract these statements; and his stubborn unwillingness to agree to formally apologize to me for his deplorable behaviour, that has brought us to this rather sad state of affairs. Unfortunately, your responses to my correspondence will clearly do nothing to encourage Rev. Drennan to retract his damaging statements or apologize to me.
I find it incongruous, to say the very least, that you have the temerity to describe my calm and dignified plea to the congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal to intervene in my dispute with Rev. Ray Drennan, during a segment of the service which is clearly intended to be one in which concerns of a quite serious nature may be raised, as "quite reprehensible" and that you may describe my handing out of a letter to this effect after the service was concluded as "entirely out of bounds" yet you are apparently totally unwilling or completely incapable of perceiving that Rev. Drennan's comportment towards me during our meeting on Thursday, November 9, 1995, to say nothing of his behaviour on a number of other occasions, is considerably more meritous of being described as "quite reprehensible" and is most assuredly "entirely out of
bounds" of "the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership."
You conclude your letter to me by saying of my actions on Sunday, April 21, "One may not behave as you have done." Are you not capable of seeing that you could, more justifiably, use these words to reprimand Rev. Ray Drennan for his "quite reprehensible" actions on Thursday, November 9, 1995 and that if you had done so that I would most likely not have found myself in a position where I felt that I had few options left open to me but to bring this highly regrettable matter to the attention of our congregation during the "joys and concerns" segment of a Sunday service? I firmly believe
that, if you had responded to my serious grievances concerning Rev. Drennan's behaviour towards me by recognizing them as being both truthful and legitimate, if you had quite justifiably reprimanded Rev. Ray Drennan by informing him that you felt that his behaviour towards me, as it is described in my letter of Wednesday February 14, was "quite reprehensible" and had made it clear to him that his deplorable comportment in my apartment was "entirely out of bounds" of the acceptable professional conduct of a Unitarian Universalist minister, and had you told Rev. Ray Drennan that as a Unitarian Universalist minister "One may not behave as you have done," and
had recommended that he retract his damaging statements about me and formally apologize to me for his behaviour as I have demanded, this regrettable conflict would hopefully now be well on its way to a satisfactory resolution.
The situation, as it now stands, is far from being satisfactorily resolved. The inability of the Canadian Unitarian Council and the Unitarian Universalist Association to constructively intervene in this matter, and the failure of the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal to take appropriate steps towards resolving this very serious dispute is highly regrettable. I will continue in my efforts to try to find a just and equitable resolution to this conflict by dealing with concerned members of the congregation.
Sincerely,
Robin Edgar
Monday, December 04, 2000
Letter from Diane Miller
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
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
Reply to Robin from John Buehrens
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
25 Beacon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 The Rev. Dr. John A. Buehrens
President
(617) 742-2100 FAX (617) 367-3237
May 6, 1996
Robin Edgar
15 rue Lafleur apt. 11
Verdun, Quebec
CANADA, H4G 3C3
Dear Mr. Edgar:
Your actions on Sunday, April 21, were, by your own description, quite reprehensible.
It is inappropriate to use the time set aside in community worship for "joys and concerns" to speak in derogation of the minister, no matter how disappointed you may feel in him. Handing out letters to the same effect following the service is also entirely out of bounds.
Historically, other congregations that have had such behavior from congregants have been forced to remove such persons from membership and to ask help from secular authorities in seeing to it that their worship is not disrupted.
As I have told you before, the Unitarian Universalist Association does not require that its ministers see to it that a member's "claim of a revelatory religious experience be properly documented and critically examined." We are also under no obligation to share with other religious communities any message from a person who has behaved as you have.
You lack a basic understanding of, and respect for, the procedures of a democratically governed religious community. The minister, having been chosen by that community, is not to be publicly attacked. One may challenge privately, and discuss concerns through other channels established by the congregation. One may not behave as you have done.
Yours sincerely,
John A. Buehrens
cc. The Rev. Ray Drennan
President of the Unitarian Church of Montreal
The Rev. Wendy Colby, St. Lawrence District
25 Beacon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02108 The Rev. Dr. John A. Buehrens
President
(617) 742-2100 FAX (617) 367-3237
May 6, 1996
Robin Edgar
15 rue Lafleur apt. 11
Verdun, Quebec
CANADA, H4G 3C3
Dear Mr. Edgar:
Your actions on Sunday, April 21, were, by your own description, quite reprehensible.
It is inappropriate to use the time set aside in community worship for "joys and concerns" to speak in derogation of the minister, no matter how disappointed you may feel in him. Handing out letters to the same effect following the service is also entirely out of bounds.
Historically, other congregations that have had such behavior from congregants have been forced to remove such persons from membership and to ask help from secular authorities in seeing to it that their worship is not disrupted.
As I have told you before, the Unitarian Universalist Association does not require that its ministers see to it that a member's "claim of a revelatory religious experience be properly documented and critically examined." We are also under no obligation to share with other religious communities any message from a person who has behaved as you have.
You lack a basic understanding of, and respect for, the procedures of a democratically governed religious community. The minister, having been chosen by that community, is not to be publicly attacked. One may challenge privately, and discuss concerns through other channels established by the congregation. One may not behave as you have done.
Yours sincerely,
John A. Buehrens
cc. The Rev. Ray Drennan
President of the Unitarian Church of Montreal
The Rev. Wendy Colby, St. Lawrence District
Thursday, October 26, 2000
Me-cng97.11.wpd
Robin Edgar
15 Lafleur, apt. 11
Verdun, Quebec
Canada, H4G 3C3 Sunday, November 9, 1997
Dear Fellow Member of the Unitarian Church of Montreal,
Today marks the second anniversary of Rev. Ray Drennan's reprehensible personal attack on me and my religious beliefs. This deplorable verbal assault, during which he repeatedly mocked and ridiculed my religious beliefs by labeling them as "silliness and fantasy" etc., and sought to deny and dismiss my claim of a profound and significant revelatory mystical experience by labeling it as "your psychotic experience", took place in my apartment on Thursday, November 9, 1995. During this meeting Rev. Drennan also falsely, and I have good reason to believe maliciously, labeled my religious activities, such as Creation Day, which were inspired by my revelatory experience, as "your cult”. When I immediately challenged this extremely derogatory, obviously defamatory, and potentially very damaging allegation, Rev. Drennan had the gall to reply that he meant "cult in the sense of "a manipulative and secretive religious group".
The foregoing are only the most serious of a variety of demeaning statements and damaging allegations that Rev. Ray Drennan made about me. A much more detailed description of his reprehensible behaviour towards me is available in my formal letter of grievance regarding Rev. Drennan's clearly unprofessional and unethical conduct. This letter, dated February 14, 1996, was submitted to the Board of this church, and the presidents of both the C.U.C. and U.U.A.
For me to say that our religious community as a whole has not responded to my legitimate and very serious grievances in a manner that is in clear conformity with the purported principles and purposes of the Unitarian Universalist religious community would be a considerable understatement. The remarkably negligent and irresponsible manner in which my serious grievances have been responded to by our religious community as a whole is well documented. The written responses of the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, officials of the Canadian Unitarian Council and the Unitarian Universalist Association, as well as the Ministerial Fellowship Committee, to my various letters airing my, grievances demonstrate a clear and consistent unwillingness to acknowledge the clearly unprofessional and unethical nature of Rev. Drennan's reprehensible conduct. Indeed, the response of our religious community as a whole to my legitimate grievances clearly demonstrates the inherent truth of the wellknown aphorism that, "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
On Monday November 3, 1 submitted copies of almost all of the letters that I have sent or received as a result of my grievances to the ministers conducting Rev. Drennan's Peer Review. When I asked Rev. Brian Kopke of the Ottawa Unitarian Congregation who Rev. Drennan was accountable to for his misconduct he affirmed that it was the congregation of this church to whom Rev. Drennan must answer for his misconduct. This is consistent with similar statements made by officials of both the C.U.C. and the U.U.A. It is therefore clearly up to the congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal as a whole to respond in a responsible manner to my legitimate and serious grievances regarding Rev. Drennan's reprehensible conduct towards me.
(page 1 of 2)
This congregation has so far responded to my grievances in a manner that is characterized by a remarkably high degree of callous indifference and willful ignorance. As far as I am concerned it has thoroughly compromised both the letter and the spirit of many of our principles and purposes; indeed, it would appear to have completely abandoned some of these principles in several instances. The Board of this church did nothing to implement responsible conflict resolution procedures when I first aired my grievances to them in February of 1996 and the Board later informed me in writing that it considers this matter to be closed. This is in spite of having done virtually nothing to responsibly address my grievances. I formally appealed to our congregation as a whole to responsibly intervene in this conflict on two occasions (April 21, 1996 and November 20, 1996) and on both of these occasions my pleas were effectively ignored.
The enclosed letter to the congregation dated September 27, 1997 gives my clear and official response to Rev. Drennan's condescending and considerably less than honest "apology" for the "distress" that his demeaning and damaging words have caused me. I was delayed in distributing this response to the congregation as a result of warnings that I would be hauled before that dreaded "euphemism" known as the "Disruptive Behaviour Commiftee" should I distribute any more letters airing my grievances to my fellow members of our congregation.
The Board received a modified version of that letter early in October but did not respond to it. John lnder made a final effort to persuade Rev. Drennan to enter into mediated dialogue with me but to no avail. Last Tuesday, November 4, John Inder informed me that Rev. Drennan not only refused to enter into mediated dialogue with me but that he had also indicated that he would neither retract nor modify any of the derogatory statements or damaging allegations that he has made about me and my beliefs. Rev. Drennan confirmed this in a telephone conversation with me the next day.
Needless to say Rev. Ray Drennan's obstinate and arrogant refusal to retract the statements that he has made about me is completely unacceptable to me and I feel obliged to continue to take steps to seek a just and equitable response to my serious grievances. I expect my fellow Unitarian Universalists in general, and our congregation in particular, to formally acknowledge that Rev. Drennan's reprehensible conduct towards me is unprofessional, unethical, and in clear violation of the integrity of numerous Unitarian Universalist principles and purposes. I expect our religious community to formally condemn Rev. Drennan's conduct, demand that he retract the derogatory statements and damaging allegations that he made about me, and subject him to disciplinary action that is commensurate with the seriousness of his offense.
In the weeks ahead I will be publicly protesting Rev. Drennan's reprehensible conduct and the failure of our religious community as a whole to responsibly address my legitimate grievances. I will not be dissuaded by threats of expulsion from our church; indeed, I will persevere in my public protests until my very serious grievances are responsibly dealt with by our religious community.
Sincerely,
Robin Edgar
(page 2 of 2)
15 Lafleur, apt. 11
Verdun, Quebec
Canada, H4G 3C3 Sunday, November 9, 1997
Dear Fellow Member of the Unitarian Church of Montreal,
Today marks the second anniversary of Rev. Ray Drennan's reprehensible personal attack on me and my religious beliefs. This deplorable verbal assault, during which he repeatedly mocked and ridiculed my religious beliefs by labeling them as "silliness and fantasy" etc., and sought to deny and dismiss my claim of a profound and significant revelatory mystical experience by labeling it as "your psychotic experience", took place in my apartment on Thursday, November 9, 1995. During this meeting Rev. Drennan also falsely, and I have good reason to believe maliciously, labeled my religious activities, such as Creation Day, which were inspired by my revelatory experience, as "your cult”. When I immediately challenged this extremely derogatory, obviously defamatory, and potentially very damaging allegation, Rev. Drennan had the gall to reply that he meant "cult in the sense of "a manipulative and secretive religious group".
The foregoing are only the most serious of a variety of demeaning statements and damaging allegations that Rev. Ray Drennan made about me. A much more detailed description of his reprehensible behaviour towards me is available in my formal letter of grievance regarding Rev. Drennan's clearly unprofessional and unethical conduct. This letter, dated February 14, 1996, was submitted to the Board of this church, and the presidents of both the C.U.C. and U.U.A.
For me to say that our religious community as a whole has not responded to my legitimate and very serious grievances in a manner that is in clear conformity with the purported principles and purposes of the Unitarian Universalist religious community would be a considerable understatement. The remarkably negligent and irresponsible manner in which my serious grievances have been responded to by our religious community as a whole is well documented. The written responses of the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal, officials of the Canadian Unitarian Council and the Unitarian Universalist Association, as well as the Ministerial Fellowship Committee, to my various letters airing my, grievances demonstrate a clear and consistent unwillingness to acknowledge the clearly unprofessional and unethical nature of Rev. Drennan's reprehensible conduct. Indeed, the response of our religious community as a whole to my legitimate grievances clearly demonstrates the inherent truth of the wellknown aphorism that, "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
On Monday November 3, 1 submitted copies of almost all of the letters that I have sent or received as a result of my grievances to the ministers conducting Rev. Drennan's Peer Review. When I asked Rev. Brian Kopke of the Ottawa Unitarian Congregation who Rev. Drennan was accountable to for his misconduct he affirmed that it was the congregation of this church to whom Rev. Drennan must answer for his misconduct. This is consistent with similar statements made by officials of both the C.U.C. and the U.U.A. It is therefore clearly up to the congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal as a whole to respond in a responsible manner to my legitimate and serious grievances regarding Rev. Drennan's reprehensible conduct towards me.
(page 1 of 2)
This congregation has so far responded to my grievances in a manner that is characterized by a remarkably high degree of callous indifference and willful ignorance. As far as I am concerned it has thoroughly compromised both the letter and the spirit of many of our principles and purposes; indeed, it would appear to have completely abandoned some of these principles in several instances. The Board of this church did nothing to implement responsible conflict resolution procedures when I first aired my grievances to them in February of 1996 and the Board later informed me in writing that it considers this matter to be closed. This is in spite of having done virtually nothing to responsibly address my grievances. I formally appealed to our congregation as a whole to responsibly intervene in this conflict on two occasions (April 21, 1996 and November 20, 1996) and on both of these occasions my pleas were effectively ignored.
The enclosed letter to the congregation dated September 27, 1997 gives my clear and official response to Rev. Drennan's condescending and considerably less than honest "apology" for the "distress" that his demeaning and damaging words have caused me. I was delayed in distributing this response to the congregation as a result of warnings that I would be hauled before that dreaded "euphemism" known as the "Disruptive Behaviour Commiftee" should I distribute any more letters airing my grievances to my fellow members of our congregation.
The Board received a modified version of that letter early in October but did not respond to it. John lnder made a final effort to persuade Rev. Drennan to enter into mediated dialogue with me but to no avail. Last Tuesday, November 4, John Inder informed me that Rev. Drennan not only refused to enter into mediated dialogue with me but that he had also indicated that he would neither retract nor modify any of the derogatory statements or damaging allegations that he has made about me and my beliefs. Rev. Drennan confirmed this in a telephone conversation with me the next day.
Needless to say Rev. Ray Drennan's obstinate and arrogant refusal to retract the statements that he has made about me is completely unacceptable to me and I feel obliged to continue to take steps to seek a just and equitable response to my serious grievances. I expect my fellow Unitarian Universalists in general, and our congregation in particular, to formally acknowledge that Rev. Drennan's reprehensible conduct towards me is unprofessional, unethical, and in clear violation of the integrity of numerous Unitarian Universalist principles and purposes. I expect our religious community to formally condemn Rev. Drennan's conduct, demand that he retract the derogatory statements and damaging allegations that he made about me, and subject him to disciplinary action that is commensurate with the seriousness of his offense.
In the weeks ahead I will be publicly protesting Rev. Drennan's reprehensible conduct and the failure of our religious community as a whole to responsibly address my legitimate grievances. I will not be dissuaded by threats of expulsion from our church; indeed, I will persevere in my public protests until my very serious grievances are responsibly dealt with by our religious community.
Sincerely,
Robin Edgar
(page 2 of 2)
me-ray97.4.wpd
Robin Edgar
15 Lafleur apt. 11
Verdun, Quebec
Canada, H4G 3C3
Rev. Ray Drennan
Unitarian Church of Montreal
5035 boul. de Maisonneuve ouest,
Montreal, Quebec
Canada, H4A 1Y5 Sunday April 20, 1997
Dear Rev. Drennan,
As I you probably remember, a year ago, on Sunday April 21, 1996, I stood up during the Sharing Joys and Concerns segment of the Sunday service and brought my very serious grievances about your unprofessional, demeaning, and psychologically abusive behaviour towards me to the attention of the congregation of our church. There is no point in my reiterating what these grievances are since they are very well documented in my various letters of grievance. As you are also aware the congregation as a whole chose to ignore my repeated appeals for responsible intervention in this matter and thus chose to ignore the principle of our religious community which call for justice, equity and compassion in human relations.
For well over a year now you have done virtually nothing to seek reconciliation with me, you have obstinately refused to retract, or apologize for in any way, your extremely insulting, demeaning, and psychologically abusive statements, indeed your outright slanderous and potentially extremely damaging allegations that you have made about me and Creation Day. During my "chat" with that euphemism known as the Disruptive Behaviour Committee John Pike insisted that you deny having made the clearly demeaning statements and damaging allegations that I have accused you of in my letters of grievance. When I mentioned this to you in the church kitchen soon after my meeting with the DBC you scowled and immediately left "in a huff." If you have denied making any of the statements that I have clearly attributed to you in my letters of grievance you know full well that you have lied to the Board, and thus, by extension, you have lied to our congregation as a whole.
You must do several things to respond to my serious grievances and redress the clear injustices that you have done to me. You must admit to our religious community that my serious grievances are legitimate and that you did in fact make the statements and allegations that I have attributed to you in my letters of grievance. You must formally recognize that such behaviour is unprofessional, demeaning, and psychologically abusive, and that the allegations that you have made that I am psychotic and involved in, or trying to start, a "manipulative and secretive" cult are potentially seriously damaging to me and to others. You must formally, and in writing, retract all of the demeaning statements and damaging allegations that you have made about me. You must deliver a sincere apology to all who have been affected by your reprehensible behaviour towards me during a Sunday service and last, but by no means least, you must begin to take steps which show a clear desire and real effort on your part to seek genuine and lasting reconciliation with me.
Patricia Dobkin has said that you will "never apologize" to me. Perhaps this is true. Perhaps you really do lack the minimal amount of personal integrity necessary to recognize that have made some very serious mistakes, mistakes that clearly violate the integrity of virtually everything that our religious community purports to stand for. Perhaps you genuinely do not possess the minimal amount of basic human decency required to formally retract the sarcastic, demeaning, and psychologically abusive statements you made during our meetings as well as the damaging and slanderous allegations that you have made about me, and to issue a sincere formal written apology to me for your reprehensible behaviour towards me. Perhaps you are totally incapable, or completely unwilling, to practice justice, equity and compassion in your "human relations" with me.
You know that I informed the congregation that I was going public with my grievances in my letter of November 20, 1996. You can be thankful that a popular Montreal radio show was "cancelled" before I could "air" my grievances on it. You can also be thankful that the Gazette, while finding my story "interesting", has said it will not run it unless the situation becomes "more acrimonious". You can be thankful that a local T.V. "problem solver" is more concerned with loose floor tiles than your "loose lips" to say nothing of those of Frank Greene, and several other leading members of the Unitarian Universalist religious community. Ultimately you can be thankful that my efforts to "go public" with my grievances have, so far, been minimal and limited to local English language media.
This is the final opportunity that I am presenting to you to show some personal integrity and human decency and "do the right thing".
If you do not indicate a willingness to finally settle this matter prior to next Sunday's service I will distribute the enclosed letter to my fellow members of our church following that service.
If you do not apologize to me by Sunday, May 2, 1997, I will have to assume that you genuinely have no intention of apologizing to me for your reprehensible behaviour towards me and will therefore have to question the sincerity of any future apology that you may offer. I will send out a "Mayday signal" to my fellow Unitarian Universalists in Canada and elsewhere and take further steps to "go public" with my grievances. I will also seek genuine justice from various sources outside of the church.
Sincerely,
Robin Edgar
15 Lafleur apt. 11
Verdun, Quebec
Canada, H4G 3C3
Rev. Ray Drennan
Unitarian Church of Montreal
5035 boul. de Maisonneuve ouest,
Montreal, Quebec
Canada, H4A 1Y5 Sunday April 20, 1997
Dear Rev. Drennan,
As I you probably remember, a year ago, on Sunday April 21, 1996, I stood up during the Sharing Joys and Concerns segment of the Sunday service and brought my very serious grievances about your unprofessional, demeaning, and psychologically abusive behaviour towards me to the attention of the congregation of our church. There is no point in my reiterating what these grievances are since they are very well documented in my various letters of grievance. As you are also aware the congregation as a whole chose to ignore my repeated appeals for responsible intervention in this matter and thus chose to ignore the principle of our religious community which call for justice, equity and compassion in human relations.
For well over a year now you have done virtually nothing to seek reconciliation with me, you have obstinately refused to retract, or apologize for in any way, your extremely insulting, demeaning, and psychologically abusive statements, indeed your outright slanderous and potentially extremely damaging allegations that you have made about me and Creation Day. During my "chat" with that euphemism known as the Disruptive Behaviour Committee John Pike insisted that you deny having made the clearly demeaning statements and damaging allegations that I have accused you of in my letters of grievance. When I mentioned this to you in the church kitchen soon after my meeting with the DBC you scowled and immediately left "in a huff." If you have denied making any of the statements that I have clearly attributed to you in my letters of grievance you know full well that you have lied to the Board, and thus, by extension, you have lied to our congregation as a whole.
You must do several things to respond to my serious grievances and redress the clear injustices that you have done to me. You must admit to our religious community that my serious grievances are legitimate and that you did in fact make the statements and allegations that I have attributed to you in my letters of grievance. You must formally recognize that such behaviour is unprofessional, demeaning, and psychologically abusive, and that the allegations that you have made that I am psychotic and involved in, or trying to start, a "manipulative and secretive" cult are potentially seriously damaging to me and to others. You must formally, and in writing, retract all of the demeaning statements and damaging allegations that you have made about me. You must deliver a sincere apology to all who have been affected by your reprehensible behaviour towards me during a Sunday service and last, but by no means least, you must begin to take steps which show a clear desire and real effort on your part to seek genuine and lasting reconciliation with me.
Patricia Dobkin has said that you will "never apologize" to me. Perhaps this is true. Perhaps you really do lack the minimal amount of personal integrity necessary to recognize that have made some very serious mistakes, mistakes that clearly violate the integrity of virtually everything that our religious community purports to stand for. Perhaps you genuinely do not possess the minimal amount of basic human decency required to formally retract the sarcastic, demeaning, and psychologically abusive statements you made during our meetings as well as the damaging and slanderous allegations that you have made about me, and to issue a sincere formal written apology to me for your reprehensible behaviour towards me. Perhaps you are totally incapable, or completely unwilling, to practice justice, equity and compassion in your "human relations" with me.
You know that I informed the congregation that I was going public with my grievances in my letter of November 20, 1996. You can be thankful that a popular Montreal radio show was "cancelled" before I could "air" my grievances on it. You can also be thankful that the Gazette, while finding my story "interesting", has said it will not run it unless the situation becomes "more acrimonious". You can be thankful that a local T.V. "problem solver" is more concerned with loose floor tiles than your "loose lips" to say nothing of those of Frank Greene, and several other leading members of the Unitarian Universalist religious community. Ultimately you can be thankful that my efforts to "go public" with my grievances have, so far, been minimal and limited to local English language media.
This is the final opportunity that I am presenting to you to show some personal integrity and human decency and "do the right thing".
If you do not indicate a willingness to finally settle this matter prior to next Sunday's service I will distribute the enclosed letter to my fellow members of our church following that service.
If you do not apologize to me by Sunday, May 2, 1997, I will have to assume that you genuinely have no intention of apologizing to me for your reprehensible behaviour towards me and will therefore have to question the sincerity of any future apology that you may offer. I will send out a "Mayday signal" to my fellow Unitarian Universalists in Canada and elsewhere and take further steps to "go public" with my grievances. I will also seek genuine justice from various sources outside of the church.
Sincerely,
Robin Edgar
defense.wpd
My defense to the motion to revoke my membership that the
Board of Management of the Unitarian Church of Montreal
brought against me at the congregational meeting
of November 22, 1999.
Board of Management of the Unitarian Church of Montreal
brought against me at the congregational meeting
of November 22, 1999.
(The following is a copy of a hand-written defense that I read from with minimal modification, self-censorship, or other editing. There were, however, some ad-lib asides etc. It is possible that a tape recording of this meeting exists but I am not aware of it.)
“Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. . .”
I beg to differ
Does anybody know what day it is today?
I beg to differ
Does anybody know what day it is today?
(Nobody responded to this question although I said that I sought a response and gave some time for people to provide one)
Today is the 36th anniversary of the small e, small c, in quotation marks
“eTHNIC cLEANSING”
of John Fitzgerald Kennedy - 35th President of the United States of America.
(I then read extensively from the “Riot Act” i.e. the Guidelines of Ministerial Leadership)
In my eyes, based on my “direct experience” the Board’s recommendation to this congregation that my membership in the Unitarian Church of Montreal be revoked (as proposed in the motion that I received in the mail and that is now before you for your deliberation and subsequent vote) is yet another “leap of faith.” It is “based on the hope” that, by controlling the process in such a way as to minimize my ability to defend myself from their charges, the leadership of this church can mislead a two-thirds majority of this congregation in to approving their motion; thus transforming their “leap of faith” into an actual Act of Faith or, in Spanish, Auto-da-Fé. “eTHNIC cLEANSING”
of John Fitzgerald Kennedy - 35th President of the United States of America.
(I then read extensively from the “Riot Act” i.e. the Guidelines of Ministerial Leadership)
An Auto-da-Fé is, according to Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language:
The public declaration of the judgement passed on persons tried in the courts of the Spanish Inquisition, followed by the execution by the Civil Authorities of the sentence imposed.
It is clear to me, and I believe that it will become clear to all reasonably intelligent people who, having a genuine appreciation for justice, equity and compassion in human relations, and seriously investigating all of the circumstances surrounding these charges, that there are serious flaws in the justice process and in the wording of the motion that the Board wants this congregation to adopt. I believe that the Executive Committee and the Board members of this “church” have made a very serious “mistake” in even proposing this motion, particularly without ever having invited me to any Board meetings to present my side of the story to them. I believe that, had I been invited to the June 16, 1999, Board meeting, or previous and subsequent meetings, so I could present my case to the Board that the motion that is before you would never have been put to the congregation.
I wish to give the Board an opportunity to admit their “mistake” and voluntarily withdraw the motion. (I made it clear that I would continue with my defense but that, as far as I was concerned, the Board could withdraw the motion at any time during the meeting.)
The Board says that I have refused to accept any decisions of the UCM or its affiliated bodies.
I say prove it. (I have in fact “accepted” some of the said “decisions.”
The Board says I have demonstrated a lack of respect for the said decisions.
I say prove it, and perhaps any lack of respect I have shown was simply because those decisions were unworthy of respect.
The Board says that I have demonstrated a lack of respect for the democratic process.
I say prove it, and countercharge that the successive church Boards have not quite lived up to the democratic ideals of our church.
The Board says that I have “lodged a number of spurious and unfounded claims against the Church.
I say that I firmly believe that none of my claims against the church are unfounded, and even the few that may appear to be spurious can be shown to be justified when explained to reasonably intelligent people.
Prove they are unfounded. Prove they are spurious.
The Board says that I have refused to accept the rejection of my complaints etc.
I say thank you for so publicly admitting that you have repeatedly rejected my perfectly legitimate and very serious complaints.
The Board says that my “refusal to accept and abide by the decisions of the UCM and its affiliated bodies is incompatible with membership in the Church.
I say that this statement might be true if this were the Totali-tarian Church of Montreal.
(I ad-libbed: “or the Authori-tarian Church of Montreal.”
I say that the said statement is simply another well documented example of the “moral and ethical mediocrity that I have encountered amongst Unitarians.” But if I wanted to use Ray Drennan’s hyperbole I would say that, “I am shocked.” “It is a moral outrage that a (Unitarian) person, usually a (dissenter) can be thrown out into the street” for exercising their “right of conscience” when they believe the church has made decisions that are neither just, nor equitable, nor compassionate.
Decisions that promote marginalization of a person rather than “acceptance and encouragement of their spiritual growth.”
Decisions made without any “responsible search for truth.”
Decisions that degrade the “inherent worth and dignity” of a person.
The Board says that the “dispute settling mechanisms of the Church are exhausted.
I say they are not. Not by any means.
(I then made it clear that I would be filing a second complaint with the MFC
regardless of the outcome of this meeting.)
regardless of the outcome of this meeting.)
The Disruptive Behaviour Committee, whose epithet has been described as “Stalinistic” by a former Board member of this Church, one of Eastern European ethnicity , is , by its very name, not a “dispute settling mechanism.” The DBC never attempted to “create compromise” it was set up primarily to prevent me from trying to distribute letters to the congregation appealing to you for intervention in my dispute. It rejected my complaint against Ray Drennan and John Inder, perhaps unilaterally, rejected my complaint arising from Pierre Binette’s physically pushing me around and threats of more serious physical assault.
(I was told I had one minute left at this point and went directly to my concluding statement on the final page of my defense beginning with “This is your hour of darkness. . .”
I was thus unable to the third and, for the UCM, most problematic charge against me.)
The Board says that I have “made statements in print, sought media attention for my demands, and displayed messages. . . in a picketing campaign.”
I say I have a perfect right to do so as both a Unitarian and, thank God (and I mean that not in vain) a citizen of Canada which fortunately is not a totalitarian dominion.
I say this is a church where “malicious gossip” is not only condoned but seemingly rampant.
I say that the words “Solar Temple” and “cult” come from the mouths of Frank Greene (former President of the Board and “Pillar of the Church” who was Parliamentarian of this meeting”), Ray Drennan and, if I am to believe Ray’s insistence that he was the “only one being honest” with me, other more politically astute members of this church who had the good sense to say these words to my face or to someone who would inform me of them.
I say that this church does engage in small e, small c, in quotation marks, “eTHNIC cLEANSING” that is what we are here for tonight. I can justify this statement to the public and have done so with success.
I say that this church “tarnished” its own “image”, indeed its principles and purposes, through the words and actions of its leaders and I am simply exposing this to public scrutiny. I am protesting the shameful conduct that I have been subjected to. Why can’t you see that words like “Solar Temple”, “cult”, “crazy”, “nuts”, “psychotic” etc. etc. etc. are “image tarnishing” and that I felt “harassed” by these “statements” long before I ever publicly protested them? Truly this is the “CHURCH OF THE DOUBLE STANDARD”, the “CHURCH OF THE TWO FACES” In the words of the woman who berated me on Sunday:
“Allez vous faites soignez.”
Why is it that you all rejected my letters complaining about my (mis)treatment and failed to acknowledge how “very difficult and unpleasant” my life was made by (it)?
Some Unitarians said, “If you don’t like it why don’t you leave?”
Small e, small c, in quotation marks “eTHNIC cLEANSING.”
The “Last of the Mohicans” walks into a bar and asks for a beer to slake his thirst. The bar tender growls, “We don’t serve Injuns in these here parts.” Not wanting any further confrontation the “Last of the Mohicans” calmly and quietly walks out of the bar.
Small e, small c, in quotation marks “eTHNIC cLEANSING.”
Thirty-six years ago today Unitarians and most other citizens of our neighbour to the south, and indeed people all around the world were in mourning. John F. Kennedy was murdered. Blown to “kingdom come” by concealed assassins
JFK was an “ethnic.” He was Irish, an ethnic group that suffered from prejudice in the “Land of the Free.” Not only was he Irish but he was of the Roman Catholic faith, a religion looked upon with suspicion by White Anglo Saxon Protestant Americans in the “Home of the Brave.” And boy was he “cleansed.”
Murder, or in the terminology of the gouvernment agencies that many conspiracy theorists believe played a role in JFK’s assassination, “terminated with extreme prejudice.”
The ultimate and final act of any “ethnic cleansing” campaign.
If there is time I propose a two-minute period of reflection for all people who have been subjected to the Orwellian euphemism “ethnic cleansing.”
What is an Orwellian euphemism?
A Ray Drennan has stated clearly in his sermon titled “Direct Experience” in which he described MFC (Ministerial Fellowship Committee) as, “a (sic) euphemism of the first order. A (sic) euphemism is best understood as a handy device of the English language which is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
Conclusion::
“This is your hour of darkness”
(I ad-libbed that I meant “darkness” in the sense of ignorance
and not knowing all the facts or truth about my case.)
I hope that more than two-thirds of you*
are beginning to see the darkness
and will begin to move towards the light
by taking my grievances seriously
and responding to me with genuine justice,
genuine equity, and genuine compassion.
I bid you adieu.
(*I only needed one third to “win” but two-thirds would have been a clear majority.
Only three members out of 80 present voted against the Board’s motion.)
“This is your hour of darkness”
(I ad-libbed that I meant “darkness” in the sense of ignorance
and not knowing all the facts or truth about my case.)
I hope that more than two-thirds of you*
are beginning to see the darkness
and will begin to move towards the light
by taking my grievances seriously
and responding to me with genuine justice,
genuine equity, and genuine compassion.
I bid you adieu.
(*I only needed one third to “win” but two-thirds would have been a clear majority.
Only three members out of 80 present voted against the Board’s motion.)
Me-Ray96.3(.wpd)
Robin Edgar
15 Lafleur apt. 11
Verdun, Quebec
Canada, H4G 3C3
Rev. Ray Drennan
Unitarian Church of Montreal March 4, 1996
Dear Rev. Drennan,
By now you have probably read the letter of complaint that I have submitted to the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal and other elected officials of both the Canadian Unitarian Council and the Unitarian Universalist Association which airs my grievances regarding the extremely unprofessional, demeaning, and emotionally abusive manner in which you have so far responsed to my claim of a profound revelatory experience.
As I said to you during our meeting of Thursday February lst, 1996, I believe that you owe me a formal apology, not only for mocking and ridiculing my claims of a significant revelatory experience but also for making false and potentially damaging allegations about me concerning my religious beliefs and related activities. Your rigid and stubborn refusal to offer me an apology for your deplorable conduct towards me and, more significantly, your apparent inability to recognize that your comportment during our meeting on Thursday, November 9th, 1995, was not only extremely unprofessional and in clear violatio@ of numerous Unitarian Universalist principles and ideals but was openly hostile, demeaning, and insulting as well, is quite disturbing. For a variety of good reasons I believe that the congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal must be made aware of your unprofessional, demeaning, and emotionally abusive conduct towards me as well as the potentially damaging allegations that you have seen fit to make about me. I think that the best way for the congregation to be initially informed about this highly regrettable affair is for you to admit to your unprofessional, demeaning, and insulting conduct towards me, to formally retract your damaging allegations about me, and to offer me a sincere and formal apology during a Sunday service in the immediate future.
You have had plenty of opportunity to volunteer an apology since our meeting on Thursday November 9th, 1995, and have not done so, you have known since our meeting of February Ist that I expect an apology from you and that I warned you during this meeting that I would take steps to see to it that you issue a formal apology to me if you would not volunteer one. The letter of complaint to the Board of our church is the first of those steps but it will by no means be the only one should you persist in refusing to voluntarily apologize to me and the Board is unable or unwilling to persuade you to offer a formal apology for your behaviour towards me.
I believe that it would be best for you if you were to apologize to me before the next Board meeting (i.e. on Sunday, March 10th). If, however, you have not apologized to me by Sunday, March 17th, 1996, I will feel compelled to take steps to inform the congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal about my grievances regarding your deplorable conduct towards me myself. As far as I am concerned, I have shown considerable restraint in not informing the congregation as a whole before now, thus giving you the opportunity to apologize to me for your deplorable conduct first.
The letter of complaint that I submitted to the Board details some of my grievances about your behaviour and it may serve as a guide in terms of what I expect you to apologize for. I expect you to admit to having scoffingly referred to my revelatory experience as "silliness and fantasy" and as "your psychotic experience" during our meeting of Thursday, November 9th, 1995. I expect you to admit to having repeatedly mocked and ridiculed my claims in a sarcastic and, at times, clearly hostile tone of voice during the time that I spent trying to brief you in more depth about my revelatory experience. I expect you to admit to having referred to my activities as "your cult" during this meeting and to have qualified this statement by going on to say that you meant a "manipulative and secretive" religious group when I inquired as to what you meant by the word "cult". I could list numerous other ways in which your conduct towards me has been negative, uncooperative, and certainly far from what might be described as "ministry" but these are the most serious grievances that I have and must be addressed in your apology. Since there are other matters that I feel merit an apology from you I will expect you to recognize that, in general, your conduct towards me has been very unprofessional, demeaning, and deeply insulting in nature. Furthermore, I expect you to recognize that your conduct was in clear violation of most of the stated principles of the Unitarian Universalist Association and was completely unbecoming of a minister of a Unitarian Universalist church. Last, but by no means least, I expect you to provide me with a written copy of any formal apology that you make to me.
I am willing to discuss this regrettable matter with you in an effort to ensure that you offer a satisfactory apology that I am prepared to accept in front of the congregation of this church; however, I have been advised not to have any further meetings with you without a neutral third party being present at the meeting. Although your behaviour to date clearly indicates to me that full reconciliation will not be easy, your formal apology to me will be the first step towards an eventual full reconciliation between us.
Sincerely,
Robin Edgar
15 Lafleur apt. 11
Verdun, Quebec
Canada, H4G 3C3
Rev. Ray Drennan
Unitarian Church of Montreal March 4, 1996
Dear Rev. Drennan,
By now you have probably read the letter of complaint that I have submitted to the Board of the Unitarian Church of Montreal and other elected officials of both the Canadian Unitarian Council and the Unitarian Universalist Association which airs my grievances regarding the extremely unprofessional, demeaning, and emotionally abusive manner in which you have so far responsed to my claim of a profound revelatory experience.
As I said to you during our meeting of Thursday February lst, 1996, I believe that you owe me a formal apology, not only for mocking and ridiculing my claims of a significant revelatory experience but also for making false and potentially damaging allegations about me concerning my religious beliefs and related activities. Your rigid and stubborn refusal to offer me an apology for your deplorable conduct towards me and, more significantly, your apparent inability to recognize that your comportment during our meeting on Thursday, November 9th, 1995, was not only extremely unprofessional and in clear violatio@ of numerous Unitarian Universalist principles and ideals but was openly hostile, demeaning, and insulting as well, is quite disturbing. For a variety of good reasons I believe that the congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal must be made aware of your unprofessional, demeaning, and emotionally abusive conduct towards me as well as the potentially damaging allegations that you have seen fit to make about me. I think that the best way for the congregation to be initially informed about this highly regrettable affair is for you to admit to your unprofessional, demeaning, and insulting conduct towards me, to formally retract your damaging allegations about me, and to offer me a sincere and formal apology during a Sunday service in the immediate future.
You have had plenty of opportunity to volunteer an apology since our meeting on Thursday November 9th, 1995, and have not done so, you have known since our meeting of February Ist that I expect an apology from you and that I warned you during this meeting that I would take steps to see to it that you issue a formal apology to me if you would not volunteer one. The letter of complaint to the Board of our church is the first of those steps but it will by no means be the only one should you persist in refusing to voluntarily apologize to me and the Board is unable or unwilling to persuade you to offer a formal apology for your behaviour towards me.
I believe that it would be best for you if you were to apologize to me before the next Board meeting (i.e. on Sunday, March 10th). If, however, you have not apologized to me by Sunday, March 17th, 1996, I will feel compelled to take steps to inform the congregation of the Unitarian Church of Montreal about my grievances regarding your deplorable conduct towards me myself. As far as I am concerned, I have shown considerable restraint in not informing the congregation as a whole before now, thus giving you the opportunity to apologize to me for your deplorable conduct first.
The letter of complaint that I submitted to the Board details some of my grievances about your behaviour and it may serve as a guide in terms of what I expect you to apologize for. I expect you to admit to having scoffingly referred to my revelatory experience as "silliness and fantasy" and as "your psychotic experience" during our meeting of Thursday, November 9th, 1995. I expect you to admit to having repeatedly mocked and ridiculed my claims in a sarcastic and, at times, clearly hostile tone of voice during the time that I spent trying to brief you in more depth about my revelatory experience. I expect you to admit to having referred to my activities as "your cult" during this meeting and to have qualified this statement by going on to say that you meant a "manipulative and secretive" religious group when I inquired as to what you meant by the word "cult". I could list numerous other ways in which your conduct towards me has been negative, uncooperative, and certainly far from what might be described as "ministry" but these are the most serious grievances that I have and must be addressed in your apology. Since there are other matters that I feel merit an apology from you I will expect you to recognize that, in general, your conduct towards me has been very unprofessional, demeaning, and deeply insulting in nature. Furthermore, I expect you to recognize that your conduct was in clear violation of most of the stated principles of the Unitarian Universalist Association and was completely unbecoming of a minister of a Unitarian Universalist church. Last, but by no means least, I expect you to provide me with a written copy of any formal apology that you make to me.
I am willing to discuss this regrettable matter with you in an effort to ensure that you offer a satisfactory apology that I am prepared to accept in front of the congregation of this church; however, I have been advised not to have any further meetings with you without a neutral third party being present at the meeting. Although your behaviour to date clearly indicates to me that full reconciliation will not be easy, your formal apology to me will be the first step towards an eventual full reconciliation between us.
Sincerely,
Robin Edgar
Me-MFC96.5(.wpd)
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. 11 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 f irst 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 f rom 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
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. 11 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 f irst 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 f rom 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)