Oh, I agree with the criticism: I think liberal religious leaders have an absolute requirement to be ready to speak prophetically and pastorally in moments like this.
I learned this the hard way, on September 11, 2001, my colleague called me and we watched the coverage of the attack in New York City. Somewhere along the line, she said that we should start to plan for a different worship service on Sunday. I said that we should wait "to see if this was going to be big thing, or not." Which is one of my 10 most stupid things ever I said as a minister. So forgive me if I seem little excitable now.
But so much of what gets said could wait anyway.
What is it about religious speech that is so dull? Why are statements from denominational leaders so predictable? Why are sermons about hot issues often so tedious, full of balance and long-views and dispassionate analysis of shades of gray?
But Twitter and Facebook were alive with anguish, anger and passion on Sunday.
Does the way that we structure authority in the liberal church mute us or dull us down?
If you want to know what a UU minister really thinks and feels about an important event, would it make more sense to follow them on Twitter, or come to church on Sunday morning?
Shouldn't we communicate more directly? I myself would have loved to see a tweet from Peter Morales on Saturday night "Stuck in airport. Angry/Sad about Z-man verdict. Hope UU's speak out, raise hell!"
There is a world of derp out there -- the endless repetition of unreflective assumptions, or bland platitudes, of high-minding honking and 32 bar solos -- let's not add to it.