Coffee Hour

Jeff Wilson says:

This is a dangerous and brilliant question, thank you for asking us to search so deeply, Matthew.

I think I would feel left outside of my religious home if UUism changed so much that multiple paths were no longer respected. This must be why I've felt real aversion when encountering the flare-ups between theists/humanists/neo-pagans. I don't want any one viewpoint to dominate UUism: I grew up humanistically in a Christianish church, where I tried neo-paganism as a teen and ended up a Buddhist. That's UUism to me: eclectic, open-ended, flexible. If any single camp carries the day, I'll feel that UUism is seriously diminished.

I'm also wary about a lot of the so-called "New Age" stuff I see in UU churches. I still think reason is a cardinal UU principle, and some of the folks I've encountered are frankly and openly anti-reason, scornful even. That's not a direction I want us to ever go in, even as I tolerate it within individuals and small sub-groups in our churches. Note here that I'm not pointing fingers at either neo-pagans or Christians here; the people I'm talking about could be put into one of those camps, but most of the folks in those two groups are far from the sort of thing I'm talking about.

Or, if the movement swung too far back to the right, I could be left behind. There have been plenty of conservatives in the history of Unitarianism and Universalism. If we didn't stick to our commitment to respect and honor all people, including homosexuals, women, etc, I'd be hard-pressed to keep hanging around. On the other hand, if we lost our political edge altogether (maybe as backlash against the hyper-politicalness of the present) I'd be mighty disappointed. UUs on the whole are an amazingly enfranchised group. I feel it is the duty of such groups to use that power to better things, not to simply navel-gaze.

But I can't well imagine leaving UUism. It is the religion of my upbringing, I don't know I could quit it any easier than I could change the foods I like or the way I talk. UUism was never a choice for me, it was just what religion was about. I hope I never reach a point where I discover that I could leave, I can hardly think of worse developments that could occur in my life.

Nancy Cronk says:

Hi,

I love this conversation. I belong to UUJA, the website for Jewish UUs. We started talking about six months ago about how uncomfortable most of us were with the word "church". Then we drifted to what some of us noticed seemed to be a growing emphasis on Christianity. Words in Reverend Sinkford's sermons and speeches seem to be increasingly Christian, such as "grace", "salvation", "gospel", etc. The UUJA is made up of humanistic Jews as well as theistic Jews, but as a rule, most of us seem pretty concerned about this latest trend we are observing. A number of Jews have left the UU congregations this year because of it. I personally am heartsick about it, but I feel I must leave too, if UUism is being overrun with Christian culture to the point of losing our interfaith commitments. Does anyone else feel this way, too? I have to think the Buddhists, Pagans, Hindus, and other subgroups within the UUA must be concerned about this, too. I think the UUA was going in the right direction to become an interfaith faith based on shared values, (like the Bahai did, which resulted in Bahai being one of the largest world faiths). I think the UUA is making a big mistake if it is reclaiming its Christian identity, at the cost of losing the rest of us.

Thanks for the opportunity to share.

Monty Vonn says:

On the disenfranchisement of Secular Humanists:

Let me get right to the point and offer my national proposal: Let the Humanists and Freethinker organizations join forces and share resources with UUA. UU's already have a chain of buildings throughout North America. Perhaps use of these structures could be offered, such as Saturdays by local humanists and freethinker groups, with the deal that they become paying members of the church, or, the group offers to pay for their fair share of facility expenses.

Then, as alternative humanist services are offered on Saturday, those UU Humanists that feel disenfranchised, may attend this service instead, or, attend both.

I believe this proposal would strengthen both institutions. The Sunday service would be free to be more spiritual with "god" language and attract new members who desire this, and at the same time have a place for the UU secular humanists to feel comfortable with attending Saturday "lectures" and "social action" talks.

Please play with this idea and remember my name!

I have drifted from my local UU church due to its more "spiritual" and "new age" flavor. I am no longer a member, but remain as a friend of the church and get its monthly newsletter. I am presently a member of the Church of the Larger Fellowship that receives $100 a year from me.

I am presently active as editor and treasurer of a local Humanist group, but noted that the average age of our group is over 65 years! I am nearing fifty and the youngest member of the group! I suspect mid-age humanists attend UU church so they may have their children attend UU Sunday school. Young humanist are probably rebel rousers and are instead attend atheist group gatherings. I would like to see us all under the same roof!

I have noted the extremely low membership of freethinking groups no matter what name they go by and the small capital we have to work with. Most non-believers are just simply not joiners or place great importance on their philosophical stance and that is unfortunate. We are politically marginalized far more than black, gays & women and we are not standing up for ourselves!

But we need to be more visible to protect separation of church/state and to change the American climate towards nonbelievers so that some day one can be President and an out-of-the closet Atheist!

Monty Vonn
Editor of "Sound Views"
Treasurer of Humanist of North Puget Sound

http://www.humanistsnps.com/

Clyde Grubbs says:

I support Matthew's struggle with the conflict between one's own personal religious identity and how other Unitarian Universalists define our religious community. As Matthew shows this is not a new phenomeon. I grew up as a Unitarian, and was almost a young adult when the merger took place. My mother was second generation Irish, my father was Texas Cherokee. (Mixed race and illegal in most states when I was a child.) The Unitarians did tolerance in those days, which I experienced as a teen as patronizing toward my family and possessive of their own way of doing things. But I believed in the ideals I learned in Sunday School, and resisted being defined out of the movement.

Our movement was theologically diverse when I was a child. But their was a battle for definitions. The old definition was one about a distinct kind of Christian (all the old books took that point of view), and a new emerging definition known as humanism. (They articulated themselves as new, and up to date in sermons and pamphlets.) By the time I was in my mid twenties, my new found Christian existentialist orientation was a minority position, and I joined the Unitarian Christians. They put forth definitions that didn't quite fit me either.

I have heard many definitions of what Unitarian Universalism is. Many of those have excluded me over the years. Some have said we are a white, middle class denomination. I didn't identify with that defintion. Some have said "we are humanist." Not me by the definitions given by the AHA. Some say we are rational. Not that I have noticed!

So, I suggest, UUs have a history of defining themselves. But based on my experience we continue to be what we have been, and what we are becoming. We can not kill our past, no matter how much we choose not to talk about it. Nor can we stop a new generation from redefining this faith community, no matter how much we love the insights we hold dear.

BTW. I like Sarah Lammerts very personal homily. She speaks to me, because she makes it clear that she is speaking for herself. A good practice.

Tim Wilkins says:

I appreciate everyone's comments. They have made me stop and re-consider many issues related to being UU. I came to UU from the United Methodist Church (UMC). I was an elder in the UMC for almost 12 years but left when my theology and sexual orientation placed me outside of their theological box. The UMC claims to be an open-minded, liberal organization, but in reality they are not. In the end they used their Articles of Faith and other statements to define people out of their church. I fear that the UU is beginning to head in that same direction.

I am currently reading "Engaging Our Theological Diversity". It seems to me that the Commission is urging less of a theological conformity as it is seeking to define or re-affirm the "center" or core of the UUA. That core is our Principles.

I agree with all of you on this site. I too would have to leave the UU if it ever began to "encourage" one particular point of view in relation to religious beliefs. The loss of the pluralism and diversity in the organization would be tantamount to losing its identity as it has come to be known. I am unwilling to compromise the pluralism for the sake of growth. I am a humanist who works out my beliefs through process theology and philosophy. I am uncomfortable with most of the "god-talk" that is currently being suggested. I have been down that road before.

I also believe that the congregation I serve on a half-time basis would vote to walk as well. We have a few Christians and New-Agers in the group, but overall we are humanist, agnostics and atheists with a few Deists thrown in for good measure.
I came to the UUA because I felt free to explore the boundaries of my own understanding of religion. I would leave to form my own humanist congregation to protect that process if need be because I believe that the message of religious humanism is too important in the public arena to be lost.

Perhaps the time has come for all of us to speak clearly that we are a pluralistic association of congregations and individuals. TO change that at this juncture would be to strip the UUA of its essence.

Marcia Lewton says:

Last year our minister (Bruce Bode at Quimper UU Fellowship in Port Townsend, WA) gave a series of sermons on Four Faiths, by which he meant looking at religious issues from four different points of view: humanist, naturalist, theist, and mystic. Along with the sermons, we attended workshops where we identified ourselves (at least for that one night) as belonging in one of the four groups, divided up accordingly, and discussed the issue chosen for the evening. Then we all came back together and spoke about what we had heard in our divided groups. There was no pressure to identify one way or another and no stigma attached. All four view were represented, although I think only one person saw himself as truly a theist, believing in God, a conscious afterlife, etc. I found myself in a very small group identifying as humanists. I do experience my religion in some was as religious naturalism. Most of us were surprised at how much agreement there was between the divisions. I think that having that series given very early in our new minister's work with us lessened the possibility of tension. Another benefit was in the language used. Nobody talked about Christianity or New Age, etc., but rather used the broader and less loaded words. If you are interested, those sermons can be found on our fellowship's website, quuf.org.

Lioness says:

I have to comment from the other side of the aisle. I live in a community where the local UU "group" is so anti-theist they can't even decide on a name. "Church", "fellowship", and "congregation" are all out of the question. Not that it seems to matter much, the "group" is too tiny to be an official member and lives on at the sufferance of the regional office. This UU "group" is the only one in a 2-3 hour drive and serves an extremely large area where every other choice is Fundamentalist Christian. However, they go out of their way to make it clear to everyone who comes there that if you're not white, over 55, currently child-free and atheist you can go right back where you came from.

I have seen new people walk out halfway through their first service. Others are a little harder to dissuade. We invited a Pagan teenager who was living with his grandmother to attend. He had to beg and plead to get her to drive him there and back after the service was over. I had explained all this to the other members before he came. During the coffee hour he was talking about his beliefs to the President who said, "I think you'd be happier at the UU group in (town over 2 hours away)." It had taken all the boy could manage to get in *our* door! How on earth was he expected to travel that far?

And the children's program! When I joined there wasn't a children's RE, but they appointed one to keep our children "out of the way." The first time I brought my children for RE I was directed to a storeroom full of broken mirrors. I turned to the RE and asked, "But what about the children's room next door?"

"What children's room next door?"

"The one with the blackboards and the child-size table and chairs for a dozen children."

"There isn't a child-size table next door. I'll show you.... Well what do you know? There is a child-size table and chairs! I never knew that!"

This woman was such an awful RE that in less than a month my preschoolers would start screaming on Saturday night and they wouldn't stop until Tuesday morning for fear of spending an hour with her on Sundays.

It took over a year to persuade them to do "Joys and Concerns" section in the weekly service, because it was too "ritualistic". Adult RE consists of "world religions" which amounts to "Which belief system are we going to put down this week?" The meetings are boring and attendance has dwindled. Everyone knows that if spirituality were discussed in a less condescending manner they would have three times the members show up and get off their interminable "probation status". It's discussed every Board Meeting. But nobody is willing to do it and the area UU theists no longer believe them.

Sure, we try to bring this issue up at meetings. It's always, "We would love to see more of you, but not if you're going to talk that God-talk." So yeah, we are all sitting around waiting for them to die off. What other choice do we have? It's either that or an outright takeover, and none of us has the stomach for that.

Patrick McLaughlin says:

Great discussion. (Lioness... ouch.)

I'm the (new) president of the board for our congregation (Palomar UU Fellowship). I served as co-chair of our search committee recently, so... almost all of this sounds very familiar. "We" though of ourselves as being what we'd been in the 60's and early 80's, largely a humanist body, agnostic or atheist... until we (the Search Committee) did a theological survey.

I recommend one as a really useful window into who's really present. It may have been THE most useful piece of information we developed. Our list was a full page long (and even so, "Other" was checked a couple times, and filled in--and nothing that went there matched any of the other things that went in there...). No one was limited to how many they could check. Our average was that people checked four. A few checked only one. A couple checked as many as eight.

Even with all the multiple choices, NOTHING achieved a simple majority. Not even our grab bag "Eclectic" option.

I think our core of humanists were somewhat shocked to find that they were not only a minority, but not the largest one. People were flabbergasted that about 25% checked Neopaganism as being a theological view that they subscribed to or that significantly informed their religious/spiritual views.

It created a certain passing discomfort, but also seemed to open a lot of doors. People who'd been uncomfortable speaking up and articulating their journey--in both its rational and non-rational elements--started to do so (we consciously started that conversation, but it's grown).

My own view is that the UU Principles are not "the core". They aren't a creed, they're expressions of what we stand for, but not what we believe, in a classically "religious" sense. Rather, I think that our core is that we recognize that The Mystery--whatever you think that is... or isn't... is an intensely personal exploration. What any of us will find there, at any given time, is in part a reflection of who we are at the time that we are looking--and of the state of the culture and the world around us.

Humanism rose in predominance in UU circles in the mid to late 20th century because of that. But just as its critiques of Christianity identified problems that drove many UUs away from Christianity, so have the articulations and critiques of revival theism and neopaganism and naturalistic theologies pointed out the shortcomings of what I'll call 'pure' or 'mainline' Humanism. And yet each movement seems to me to really be the mark of a given era's tide on the UU beach. We recast the sand... and build new sandcastles. And the next tide will knock them down and people will frantically worry that we're losing the whole beach....

What we have in common is our care for each other, our respect for each other, and our devotion to each person's right to explore, learn... and to change. And--in our better moments--we avoid that fundamentalist trap of thinking that we are the one true way.

There is, and there will remain room for Christians and Humanists. And when the Buddhist tide sweeps in... or the Islamic one... or the Taoist one... or whatever, the Neopagans will join the Humanists and Christians wondering if there's still room for them. There always is.

The hard part is recognizing that "room" means that some of the time, you're going to have to see, hear... and even listen... to things that you don't enjoy particularly. That you don't agree with. Things that you explored and passed by. Or things that you've never felt the temptation to explore.

I've learned not to chew the inside of my cheeks and grumble furiously over responsive readings. I still don't care for them, really, but the brussels sprouts aren't really as awful as I insisted they were. The lights went on when I realizes that my older son... who won't sing hymns... is actually participating in the responsive readings--and getting something out of it.

Revisiting things we've let go of... visiting things that we'll never (well... we think...) participate in challenges, tests, and proves (in the old sense of the word) our current beliefs. Maybe that's why the experience is so unsettling.... We might find that what we've built our current sand castle on is just... sand... when we were so sure that felt solid and rocklike.

We have members who are really uncomfortable with the word "church". We're not a church, we're a fellowship (and by god, it's going to stay that way...). But we've tried to take the hard edge off for people; to get folks to recognize that while we're not a "church", we are a community to which many who come... who are comfortable with the word. That it's as unfair to them to deny them the casual use of it in phrases like "going to church" and "this is my church" as it is for anyone to ever formally refer to it as "The Church". Not to mention that sternly correcting someone about this not being a church, in a conversation including a visitor or relative newcomer is extremely rude, and likely to drive people away (any group that makes a fetish of a word is going to turn people away. We do remind people. Gently. The minister actively works on language. So does the board).

A little tenderness and sensitivity--both ways--makes a world of difference.

I think that Sinkford's call for a language of reverence is a good one. I think it's an important one.

And I think the rest of us have to hear it through our various UU-hyphenated filters. While I think that he probably does personally feel it in a somewhat Christian-flavored sense, I think that's his personal take, and not his meaning. I think that we need a diverse and multifold understanding of a language of reverence... akin to the call for us to think about moral values in a pluralistic society.

We ARE a pluralistic society. We need to have a Christian dialect of reverence, a Humanist dialect of reverence, a Neopagan dialect of reverence, a Buddhist dialect of reverence... etc. And collectively, we'll find much in common that will be the core of a UU language of reverence. That language will let us speak more clearly to more people in ways that will reach them, and be meaningful to them. That language will allow us to better understand and appreciate each other... and it might allow us to more deeply understand ourselves, both in our microUUghettos and ourselves.

I'm pretty happy with my own congregation at the moment--other than what I feel is a bit of a scaredy-cat approach to growth (we're growing... but the nearly palpable fear that it might change something is maddening. We are changing. We're always changing. It's inevitable. If we stopped growing, we'd still change.). Our search and new minister worked out well. People are talking... more. Almost no one left with the arrival of a new minister (Pagan-Buddhist-Taoist-Humanist flavored, trained in a Christian seminary...). Growth is continuing. Change is, too.

But we really do have to get over this fear that making room for some more folks at the table--in or congregations and in our movement--is going to mean that some of us have been shoved from the table.

(All that said, I think that I could probably get a nice stir if I suggested that we really, really needed to get a bible study going. But I don't think that anyone would object, or try to stop it.)

I think we need to do a better job of not letting ourselves "lose" our Christian(-rooted) baggage, or our Humanist(-rooted) furnishings. But we also do have to remember that the baggage and furnishings don't define any of us.

Matthew Gatheringwater says:

Wow! Thanks so much for your comments. It is great to hear different perspectives on this issue and I feel like I've learned something already.

Online communication can be kind of fragmented, so I'm going to try and summarize what I've heard so far. Let me know if I've read you wrong, or if you'd like to expand on something you've said.

Tipping points, or the things that push us away from UU self-identification, include:

* The perception that, instead of being theologically pluralistic, one theological viewpoint has become dominant.
(Jeff) (Nancy) (Tim) (Lioness)

* The abandonment or disparagement of reason. (Jeff)

* The identification of a narrow political perspective with our religious identity, the loss of broad liberal values, or indifference to social action. (Jeff)

* The institutional use of theologically-freighted words (like "grace," "salvation," "gospel," and "church") that speak welcome to Christians but do not reflect the theological perspective of non-Christians. (Nancy) (Tim)

* Displacement of secular humanism by the influx of "spirituality" and New Age interests. (Monty)

* A culture that can't always accommodate the ways in which we are unique: our ethnicity, our theology, our class identification. (Clyde)

* New generations redefine our movement. (Clyde) (Monty)

* The use of institutional statements of identity to "define people out" of their religious community. (Tim)

* An unwillingness to accommodate the needs of needs and interests of newcomers and younger members. (Lioness)

* Resistance to liturgical change. (Lioness)

Besides things that push us away, several folks have mentioned things they believe pull us together. I'll try and recap those, too.

* Heritage and tradition. (Jeff)

* Religious education; shared ideals. (Clyde)

* Identification with the UUA's Principles. (Tim)

* A pastoral response to theological diversity. (Marcia)

* Respectful conversation about differences, which included education, a way for people to be both theologically distinct and yet still part of the larger group, and avoiding the use of needlessly fraught language. (Marcia)

* Cogregational self-assessment. What do our members already believe? (Marcia) (Patrick)

* Recognizing that the core of our religious experience is the freedom to make a personal religious exploration in a supportive community. (Patrick)

* A learned tolerance for theology, language, and rituals that do not reflect our own perspective. (Patrick)

So, what do you think? Are we on the same page, here? I don't mean do we all agree with these sometimes conflicting statements, I just mean, do we agree these are the issues we are talking about?

Lioness says:

Pretty good. I'd like to add one more that has been discussed heavily on the UUHomeschoolers list this week, and that's the comparitive unfriendliness of UU churches to new members and young people, especially compared with Fundamentalist churches. The Far Right may be all brainwashed barbarians, but they're a whole lot friendlier to people who show up at their door than your average UU congregation, and many of our children desire to leave the UU and go to the local megachurch just so they'll be with people who act like they want kids around. These young people quite often have to seriously hold their noses to put up with the indoctrination, but they're willing to do it for the companionship. Call me an alarmist, but I consider this to be a serious problem worthy of our utmost attention.

James Swan says:

[Note: I've copied Jame's comment from another part of the blog. Matthew Gatheringwater]

I've been a UU for about 15 years. I'm a humanist and an agnostic. I am comfortable with 'churchy' things like lighting candles for joys and concerns, CUUPS-oriented services, sermons on Jesus, and so on. I have always questioned the terminology 'worship service' (it's not just what might be worshipped; it's also why any entity who might be worshipped would want to be), but given that many humanists accept it as appropriate, I don't gripe too much. As UUs, we do many things to embrace each others' diversity.

There are, however, several things to which I object:
(1) Being more like conventional churches: Somehow, some UUs seem to believe that this will help us grow. I find it untrue to who we are; and I cannot imagine why those UUs think we can compete in an arena where those 'conventional churches' are already experts in what they do.
(2) Seeking creedal unity for unity's sake: I was most uncomfortable when the Committee on Appraisal reported to the recent Fort Worth GA, feeling that their message was that we need to find something to believe in common lest we be doomed. I don't see any value, in fact I see harm, in 'finding' areas of agreement on belief where there is in fact much disagreement -- as there is in almost any area one can note. I especially disagree that the Seven Principles are inadequate to express our unity. No matter how they were arrived at, they are seven areas to which we as UUs are committed. Personally, I don't see them as creedal at all, nor would I find that desirable: I don't "believe in" the inherent worth and dignity of every human person, rather I am willing to commit to it and attempt to act accordingly.
(3) Simple-minded slogans, song lyrics, and so on. Many of the 'new' elements of worship seem to me to be incredibly dumbed down. Heaven knows that many older UU hymns are horrible things to sing, and that even lively hymns we often seem to sing a dirge tempo; but I much prefer some of those old things, including those laden with 'god language,' to lively repetition of simple-minded lyrics.
(4) The assumption that one's search for truth and meaning is the same as another's -- is the same as mine.

John Dale says:

Dear Friends,

I was at GA this year and heard part of the presentation of the Commission on Appraisal, and I came away rather worried. It sounded like its mission was to find out what "theology" or "beliefs" UUs had in common.

To me this is misguided. For one thing, as Karl Popper once said, "I don't believe in beliefs." People who are engaged in a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning" are not in the business of "believing" things but of testing things. Mario Bunge writes, "The criterion of the truth of a proposition is how much it has been tested."

The ethical commitments are a common element in UU, but there is no theological "belief" element common to all UUs, and that is precisely what turns UU into "religion beyond form" where 'religion' can be seen in its original ethical and theologically neutral meaning of "re + ligio"/binding together.

Any theological creed or non-creed is a form of fundamentalism - an uncritical belief in uncritical belief, a unity that creates disunity.

Pure community, radical inclusiveness, unsullied by theological creeds or non-creeds, is the most valuable thing that UU can offer as an alternative to fundamentalism. Like the United Nations, it is the all-inclusive "big tent" that the world needs.

It would be literally a crime against humanity to land UU squarely in either a theistic or an atheistic corner. We must follow the inner discipline of keeping it in the creative emptiness.

Yours,

John Dale
UU United Nations Office Envoy
to Granite Peak UU Congregation
Prescott,AZ
gpuuenvoy@yahoo.com

Lioness says:

After sleeping on it I would sum it up this way: when people ask me what the UU is, I tell them it is a church where it doesn't matter what you believe but how you behave (the Seven Principles). The problem is that in practice UUs don't always behave anything near as well as they should. This problem is driving new people and young people away, and keeping the public from taking the UU seriously. All this talk of creedal reform is papering over the real problem, which is our behavior. I don't want other UUs to believe the same way I do. I want them to behave respectfully towards my beliefs and more importantly towards my children.

My husband's ancestors started the first Universalist church in our state. He grew up UU and we looked forward to bringing up our children in the UU. Right now he's so disgusted with the bad behavior of the leadership at our local "group" he never wants to set foot in another UU church again. Is this the sort of legacy the current leadership of the UU wants to be remembered for?

Patrick McLaughlin says:

A couple things I want to respond to...

First, James' comments (via Gatheringwater):

"There are, however, several things to which I object:
(1) Being more like conventional churches: Somehow, some UUs seem to believe that this will help us grow. I find it untrue to who we are; and I cannot imagine why those UUs think we can compete in an arena where those 'conventional churches' are already experts in what they do."

Insofar as this means being like them in content or structure, I entirely agree. I don't want to be told by a minister what to believe. Nor do I want to see anyone read out for heresy (or lack thereof...). Perhaps foremost, I want to have a community where people are not highly pressured to conform (a certain moderation there being necessary for any community to exist... but not to the extremes that are common conformism).

But that's not what's drawing people to fundie megachurches. Oh BOY! I get to go and be told how to think and to be pressured to conform, told how to vote, and milked hard for cash.... No, that's NOT what's being sold.

What IS being sold is a community that FEELS safe, that feels caring, and that provides a certain context of refuge and certainty. As important is that -- in a society which is hideously truncated of most of what human community has provided to individuals and families for millenia -- is a rich community life.

UU congregations often lapse into a certain cliquishness. Too many of us love people we see there--and only see them there, perhaps once a week... or less. So we hurry to make contact... and unintentionally, unwittingly, snub or exclude unfamiliar faces. We need more community for ourselves. Getting together more will deepen things for us--and make it easier to surrender a few minutes to be more open to new folks on Sunday mornings (or whenever). There's also the richness of larger communities. They CAN provide more activities, more amenities. A congregation of 50 can't compete with all that--but it can provide as much warmth, and at least as much intimacy. That's what I see the call being to emulate. It's a little bit of form, and more behavior or outlook.

"(2) Seeking creedal unity for unity's sake: I was most uncomfortable when the Committee on Appraisal reported to the recent Fort Worth GA, feeling that their message was that we need to find something to believe in common lest we be doomed. I don't see any value, in fact I see harm, in 'finding' areas of agreement on belief where there is in fact much disagreement -- as there is in almost any area one can note. I especially disagree that the Seven Principles are inadequate to express our unity. No matter how they were arrived at, they are seven areas to which we as UUs are committed. Personally, I don't see them as creedal at all, nor would I find that desirable: I don't "believe in" the inherent worth and dignity of every human person, rather I am willing to commit to it and attempt to act accordingly."

I'll withhold comment. I agree with you, but I'm actually reading the report... so rather than reacting to what people think they heard--an interpretation of a summarized statement... -- I'll come back later to react to the actual report. So far, it seems to be hostile to the idea of trying to develop any sort of creed, and opposed tto some enforced collective theology.

"(3) Simple-minded slogans, song lyrics, and so on. Many of the 'new' elements of worship seem to me to be incredibly dumbed down. Heaven knows that many older UU hymns are horrible things to sing, and that even lively hymns we often seem to sing a dirge tempo; but I much prefer some of those old things, including those laden with 'god language,' to lively repetition of simple-minded lyrics."

Hymns are ghastly, heaven knows most hymns are ghastly... and we dirge them to death.

I think that Sturgeon's Law will apply to the new supplement as much as the existing hymnal. There are hymns that I've never heard... expect never to hear... hope never to hear.

Oh well.

"(4) The assumption that one's search for truth and meaning is the same as another's -- is the same as mine."

Meaning what? The drink of water one takes is not the same drink of water that another takes. The water is not the same, the vessel is not the same.

But...

Lioness's last remark stirs a troubling thought...

We often criticize--with excellent justifications--elements of creeds that others adhere to, as well as their hypocrisy. Yet their failure is precisely in that they fail to actualize what they claim to stand for most of all.

Is our "sin" similar in character? We don't do creed, and yet UU moral character is generally quite admirable. But we DO make much of community ... and seem to be doing a marginal and embarrassing job of it.

Patrick McLaughlin says:

Had I replied to Martin in the same post, it would have been hideously long, so...

"* The perception that, instead of being theologically pluralistic, one theological viewpoint has become dominant.
(Jeff) (Nancy) (Tim) (Lioness)"

I find that intensely ironic. I don't think that there is a dominant viewpoint. We looked for one in our congregation and couldn't even get a majority to subscribe to "Eclectic". The cry seems to come, repeatedly, from those who've thought they sat at the head of the table, and are finding that's not the case--or not the case anymore. I don't mean that to offend, but it seems to capture the essence. It's "our" church in the collective, not "our" church in the sub-sect sense. But if, for a time, a sub-group is dominant, or appears to be, its members feel like they've been deprived of a prized possession. We all need to learn to share better....

"* The abandonment or disparagement of reason. (Jeff)"

Whereas I see reason extremely highly valued--but not being held to be the only metric of value.

"* The institutional use of theologically-freighted words (like "grace," "salvation," "gospel," and "church") that speak welcome to Christians but do not reflect the theological perspective of non-Christians. (Nancy) (Tim)"

Of late, I've really been enjoying reading Frederic Muir, and listening to our minister (Beth Johnson) talking about finding our own interpretations of these terms--or at least some of them. I've come to my own peace with "grace" and can deal with "church" (though I am exceedingly careful to use "fellowship" to refer to ours). I'm not sure I'll get there with salvation. Gospel is going to take a lot of work, even though I'm comfortable with it looking at its roots. We do have good tidings to share...

"* New generations redefine our movement. (Clyde) (Monty)"

Inevitably. Always. We're born again, and again, and again....

"* The use of institutional statements of identity to "define people out" of their religious community. (Tim)"

Over my dead, noisy body. Tim, if that's coming, I think that you'll find a line of congregations willing to walk out, too.

"* An unwillingness to accommodate the needs of needs and interests of newcomers and younger members. (Lioness)"

I have to partially agree. I was struck, reading the Committee on Appraisal's report, suggesting that on average, we address the needs of newcomers better than those of oldtimers. I know that's not Lioness's experience. My own experience is more mixed. But I think that the denomination is still doing a D+ job of addressing the needs of children and youth. There's good stuff there, but it's very spotty. Very. Our recent Search identified Youth programming and Children's R.E. programs (and adult R.E.--not just great book discussions...) as being top drawer needs. Yet... two years after helping identify those needs, I'm really having to make noise about the state... and needs... of the Youth program, needs in Children's R.E...

Patrick McLaughlin says:

Hit "post" too eagerly.

"So, what do you think? Are we on the same page, here? I don't mean do we all agree with these sometimes conflicting statements, I just mean, do we agree these are the issues we are talking about?"

Works for me. Those do seem to be the bulk of what's before us, as a movement.

Jeff Liebmann says:

Thank all of you for this insightful conversation. As someone at the very beginning of the path toward UU ministry in midlife, these postings provoke much thought. As an athesist committed to freethought, I have wrestled with the language of reverence issue. I cringe every time we sing "This Little Light of Mine" at our church, but bow to the wishes of the majority since it really doesn't compromise my beliefs to support elements of worship that others find meaningful.

This debate walks a razor's edge between creating intentional offense of certain beliefs/practices and becoming too politically correct with the result being that our language has no meaning at all. Many of you have discussed the need for understanding and compromise, and I concur.

I guess the one word that I am growing more and more comfortable with, and that I support increased use of, is the word "love." Hosea Ballou said:

"If we agree in love, no disagreement can do us any harm. If we disagree in love, no other agreement can do us any good."

To me, this is the heart of the matter. And, it is hard, because we rational humanists tend to distrust love since it doesn't pass muster scientifically. Also, some people of other religious persuasions have coopted this and other words as used them to hurt others. I think this is Rev. Sinkford's main point.

Unitarian Universalists should not be afraid to reclaim certain words and make others aware of what we believe their meaning to be. We may slip occasionally, say something not quite correctly, or misjudge others' actions and intentions. But, if we are first and foremost committing to loving each other in a religious community, then we are on a healthy path. A commitment to love helps us civility, understanding, and compassion.

Our denomination has seen great change throughout its history -- and that change continues today. I think we have for too long ignored the impact of those changes on our numbers. I particularly feel we have ignored the religious education of our children and youth for far too long. Youth ministry is my focus and I intend to work toward increasing our commitment to youth programming.

This would be my tipping point. If we ever fully abandoned our commitment to our youth and the precious gifts they bring to our faith, I would be out the door.

Lioness says:

Tom, if that's your tipping point you might want to read these recent comments from some mothers on the UUA Homeschooler list, which has a "repost freely" policy:

"Some of us are very low income. And, at least at this time, that is not something that folks even want to acknowledge, let alone deal with. There is no money for kids to do expensive stuff with the other kids. As a matter of fact, if it costs money the "other" kids just aren't even brought into it. My daughter would learn about opportunities to go to cons or other UUA activities only after the fact, when one of the rich kids came back and reported on it. The RE folks would only contact the teens whose families could afford it and would leave the poorer teens out of the information loop. Before the event they would not even mention it in senior high RE. Doesn't anyone think that the other kids can't figure out what is going on here?"

"This policy of only appealing to the middle class or above is REALLY shortsighted. Just look at all the fundamentalist churches, even here in WA state! They are all growing exponentially and blowing up at the seams! In comparison, the growth rate in even our best churches looks very modest, and then we wonder why all those FUNDY churches are taking away so many of our teenagers, young children with friends who are members of those churches BEG to go to the FUN Vacation Bible Schools and other social events there for free, and in the end they are a real political force to be reckoned with in this country where our own congregation causes barely a murmur, partially due to our comparatively low numbers. Sometimes we should take lessons on recruiting and retaining young families and maybe some of the poorer folks from those more fundamentalist churches."

"My daughter has attended a few teen activities at one such facility with one of her skater friends who goes to public school. She was very impressed with the warmth and friendliness put forward by everyone there. She said she also admired their passion, their willingness to speak passionately about what they believe, what they feel. She said it was awesome, and a little scary to her at the same time. She has talked recently about going back there, finding that being a second-class member at our UU church has left her out of many things she would like to do. She said it might be better to deal with the fundamentalist brainwashing rather than just be left out and not respected. That's coming from a teen perspective, folks.

For example, recently the RE director went to great lengths to muck things up for the youth con my daughter and the other teens were planning, offering no real support. When they asked if they could work on their plans during RE time they were flatly told "no," even though during several of those Sunday sessions the teens did absolutely nothing because the person in charge of whatever was planned canceled, and the substitute adult came in with his own plans, mostly just shooting the breeze, my daughter reported.

I pleaded with the RE director, reminding her that most of the teens cannot drive, do not have cars, or do not have money to buy gas to drive to other meetings, and do not have parents who are willing to drive them to church or someone's house on weekdays and sit and wait while they hold meetings, even if they had any extra time when they could all meet. It all fell on deaf ears.

Finally I resorted to bending the ear of one of the "influential" people in the church, told her the same sad story, and she made sure that the teens were allowed to meet on the last two Sundays before their con. Not great, but better than nothing, after months of trying. Then the RE director went out of her way to set up a lose- lose situation, arranging mural painting sessions at the same time as these meetings about the con. That meant that the teens had to choose one or the other. Since many had designed the murals they wanted to be there to paint them. Not fair! Split the teens right down the middle.

On top of that the RE director also then set up a last minute unannounced graduation ceremony on one of those two Sundays for a
mentally disabled youth, separate from the graduation ceremony that had already been held for all the other youth, and again asked the teens to choose attending church and that ceremony, or proceeding to meet to work on their con. In the end there were only three who met and several others withdrew from the con completely due to the divisiveness intentionally set up by the RE director. These are just a few examples, but I hope you get my drift. If this isn't lack of support, lack of respect, then what is?

Well, my daughter was very very disappointed. The youth, especially the teens, are the future of the UU church, the future of this
country. Turn them off, don't listen to them, don't get involved in what interests them, cut them off, and worse, set them against each other (divide and conquer tactics) and they will head off in their own directions soon enough. Too bad. They have so much energy and vitality!"

"If your mission is to "save souls" then you cannot theoretically discriminate based on income. Since UUs do not have any such mission I guess they feel less compelled to incorporate those who don't fit the demographic profile of their church, which often excludes those of color or those of meager means. But based on that same comparison, neither the fundies nor the UUs attract many African American minorities, from any income class. We still inadvertently support "the most segregated hour of the week." Though my daughter reports that the fundy church she attended with her friend did have a high level of diversity, higher than our UU church. So the fundies are doing some things right.

...exclusion, on any level, never goes over big, especially with those who find themselves more often than not, excluded. A great
many of the "fun" events at our church are fundraisers, so if you have no money to spare, nothing to spend, then once again, you are an outsider at most of these events. But the tour and cruise crowd love it!"

"Mine's not a teen yet, but she sings with a couple of choirs that travel around and perform in churches of various denominations. (One of the choirs is based at an Episcopal church.) I chaperone most of the trips, so I've had a chance to visit, too. And the one thing that both my daughter and I ALWAYS notice and comment on is how much more welcoming virtually every one of those churches is than our own "Welcoming Congregation.""

"It is rare for a teen to attend the UU nearest to us."

> > "I can only speak for one teen, but she found the warmth and friendship that one local fundamentalist group offered to their teens to be> > amazing. They offered trips and all kinds of projects in which to get involved. All very satisfying to the soul."

"And I can say, for my almost 8-y.o., that by far the nicest, most caring group of families (as long as we don't talk religion or politics) we've encountered here in OR have been the Xian far right folks on a track/field team she's on this summer. Really nice, warm, caring, friendly, dependable, supportive folks (they're starting to poke around for our religious affiliation, at which point I suspect the poop will hit the fan, which is very sad)...My daughter's joked that she wants to join the Xian far right...breathe in, hold, breathe out slowly..."

"Can you see the allure of these groups to our young people and see so clearly where UUism could be lacking for them? Even young women who really want a family and really see the attractiveness of marrying a man who was raised with the "breadwinner" expectation could be a whole lot more attractive than "liberation" of traditional UU thought. This is EXACTLY how we could lose
bright, young, able, stable young women to the far right. They could decide that the stability and support offered their families is well worth having to live under the constraints of conservative Christianity. This is exactly why I
am striving to provide a rich faith community for my daughter and am involved in our church RE."

Now. Why can't we have a warm, friendly, caring LIBERAL religious community?

Lioness says:

Excuse me, I meant Jeff. Sorry

Jeff Liebmann says:

Hear, hear, Lioness.

I think your post makes two points I feel very strongly about. First, while we do have some very good youth programming, we should have many times as much. Unfortunately, far too many of our congregations make it up to and maybe through a Coming of Age program and then very little. Too many dedicated advisors knock themselves out at the church and district levels and eventually burn out. Budgets are too small, if they exist at all. And, of course, you have the hostility that some adults exhibit toward teens in general...sigh.

But, the second point is one you don't see discussed often and your post directly addresses it. Many of us adult UU's came to this faith from another church. Most UU youth are born and raised UU. So, for us converts, we have already addressed many of the complex issues of life and theology and have come to UUism after some degree of "comparison shopping."

Youth, on the other hand, look to us for all of the answers. For them, our institutional response of promoting the search for truth and meaning is not enough. So, when they go to other churches, the appeal of well-constructed answers is strong. We need to help our children and youth more than we currently do as they search for answers in life.

Now, I am not saying that we need to mimic Bible camps and other strategies used elsewhere. I am saying that we need to be more intentional and put a lot more effort into it than we are currently. I have spent the last 10 years writing junior and senior high RE curricula and I would like to think it has had an impact. But, it is not nearly enough. There are so many youth out there that would welcome our message and our community, but who don't even know we exist.

Gary Hagen says:

The link to this conversation was posted on our local yahoo group called polylogue. I found it reflected similar discussions we have had. It is difficult to welcome change even if know it will come or the "church" will die. I search for truth and community and UU is as close as I have found. Like many of you (I think) my beliefs are an odd conflicting set. I am a pagan/atheist maybe pantheist? I know in some in my congregation fear the pagans are taking over, while the pagan fear there is two much Christian influence. I welcome the debate while I fear we are driving away old-timers. How do we hold together while remaining true to ourselves?

Patrick McLaughlin says:

Gary, I can but stand and insist that there's room for everyone. But that everyone has to accept that everyone else may attend, participate, etc., as well. If we dont' stop wasting our time fearing each other... how the hell are we going to deal with people who aren't part of us already?

It puts me in mind of the lyrics of a song (click to go review the whole thing) by John McCutcheon

The last verse and refrain are:

Home to the table, home to the feast
Where the last are first and the greatest are the least
Where the rich will envy what the poor have got
Everybody's got enough, 'though we ain't got a lot
No one is forgotten, no one is alone
When we're calling all the children home
Gathered 'round the table and the big, black pot
Everybody's got enough, 'though we ain't got a lot
No one is forgotten, no one is alone
From the sacks in Soweto to the ice of Nome
From Baghdad City to the streets of Rome
When we're calling all the children home

Moishe, Isabelle, Sipho, Kim
Mohammed, Mikael, Red Hawk, Tim

Leo Nagorski says:

I am grateful for all of the comments I've read (even the ones that were painful to read).
In one sense, I think we are like "conventional churches". We are all imperfect human beings who far too often fail to practice what we preach at our best. We also could learn some things from others. Lioness rightly chastises us for seemingly being focussed only on the "upper class", at least as a denomination (the Catholic Church I left had a nice mixture of all economic levels). Many in my church are on fixed incomes, unemployed, underemployed, etc. As a result we have always tried be "affordable" and critical of a too frequent denominational "snobbishness".
On the practical side, there are ways to do things. My family attended Summer Institute recently (kind of a UU summer camp). Every year through contributions, bookstore sales, raffle tickets, etc, a "scholarship fund" is collected to enable families in the District to attend for the following year. The awarding of these scholarships is strictly confidential. Similar funds are collected for Youth activities and events. Obviously, this is far from perfect and our sensitivity to economic issues definitely needs work. But, we can try.
Re: diversity. As some have already pointed out, we tend to be tolerant and accepting AFTER the fact. Usually in the midst of the struggle, we're not. Emerson irritated many , even Channing. Theodore Parker was scorned, and the Theist-Humanist controversy was gut-wrenching for many.
I am a Humanist and I, like Jeff Liebmann, am drawn to Ballou's love comment. I would never want to exclude any of us from our community. Jack Mendelsohn's pamphlet,"Meet the Unitarian Universalists" refers to us as a "haven for heretics". We dare not turn any away. When I joined UU I felt I had come home. I just hope there's no one out there trying to evict me.

chutney says:

John Dale,

You write, "Any theological creed or non-creed is a form of fundamentalism - an uncritical belief in uncritical belief, a unity that creates disunity."

Fundamentalist scholars would disagree with so broad a definition, which to me seems designed to mark everyone you who does X thing you dislike (having a creed) as a fundamentalist. Liberal Episcopalians, for instance, would be surprised to learn that their weekly recitation of the Nicene Creed makes them fundamentalists. Just because you find creeds distasteful doesn't mean that those who find them helpful are fundamentalists. It seems ungenerous to lump all "creeders" in with Wahabists and Jerry Falwell so easily.

Paul Wilczynski says:

I hate to admit that, the more discussions like this I read, the more confused I get as to what the religion I belong to is. Except that it's "searching". (I've been a UU for around 12 years).

I've been a proponent of trying to find *something* that we can all agree we believe, but it's obvious I'm gonna be on the losing end of that struggle. UU's just seem to hate the word "believe" when preceeded by the word "we".

I think we need to understand that not only are we a tiny, tiny group, we're getting smaller. It's happening too slowly to be very noticable, but one day we're going to be ... nonexistent. And, frankly, the primary reason for that is lots of UUs arguing that their own uniqueness is more important than trying to agree on what they share with other UUs (except for "searching").

I'm starting to get tired of "searching". One great comment in the Commission on Appraisal report (I don't have it in front of me so I can't quote it) basically says that the middle and upper classes are pretty much the only ones who have as much time for self-reflection as one needs to be a UU. People who are less fortunate are spending most of their time struggling to survive, and don't have the spare time to stare at their navel.
Obviously, that's a bit of a paraphrase.

Finally, the quote that struck me the most in this discussion was this one from Lioness: "After sleeping on it I would sum it up this way: when people ask me what the UU is, I tell them it is a church where it doesn't matter what you believe but how you behave (the Seven Principles). The problem is that in practice UUs don't always behave anything near as well as they should. This problem is driving new people and young people away, and keeping the public from taking the UU seriously. All this talk of creedal reform is papering over the real problem, which is our behavior.". Yep, that's so true. The closest I've ever come to an elevator speech is "What we believe isn't as important as what we do". Except that, all too often, we don't do so much.

Oversoul says:

I have long lamented online that UUism will crumble (or at best stagnate) if it doesn’t find a center for itself.

It’s simply irrational to try to sustain a religion that has no religious base, no common (however broad) set of religious (and by that I also mean theological) ideas among its members. This is precisely why UUs are labeled as “believing anything.” There’s a great deal of truth to that stereotype.

Having said that, I certainly don’t have ill-will towards non-theists. I just think that someday UUism will have to pick what it wants to be, and that means someone will have to either tolerate that their ideology is not the predominant one, or they will leave.

“…are not in the business of "believing" things but of testing things.”

Why do you assume that belief and “testing things” are incompatible? Is religion nothing but an unending series of experiments? Like Paul I’m tired of endless “searching.” I think most people I know who have religious beliefs have them from hard-won insights, and even still they struggle to review and refine them. But that doesn’t mean they don’t have beliefs, and it surely doesn’t mean they don’t respect that their beliefs may be incorrect.

“Any theological creed or non-creed is a form of fundamentalism…”

Fundamentalism is an ideology that (often violently) purports to be absolutely true above all other ideologies. If UUism had “boundaries” to borrow from the report, that would not even come close to fundamentalism. Were this the case, then a neighborhood group of people who agree to come together to play poker every Friday would be fundamentalists.

UUism needs to have some kind of grounding. In the absence of a larger Association effort, that need will be filled on the local level, and may continue to escalate the factional warring that some people here have reported.

Lioness says:

"Belief" vs. "testing", i.e. faith vs. reason is a false dichotomy. It completely overlooks the third member of the triumvirate, experience, i.e. "does this set of parameters work for me?"

The UU is now a place for Seekers, yes. That begs the question of what do we do with people who find what they Seek? Do we toss them out on their ear? Or can we grow big enough to mutually respect each other's Answers, even if they would not work for us personally?

The best statement of religious tolerance I ever read was in a fantasy novel of all things. The characters had gone on a quest and learned Great Truths, and now had to figure out where their own religious beliefs, known as "The Way" fit alongside those Great Truths. Finally someone said, "'The Way' is a small truth wrapped inside a bigger truth. For me, from day to day, the smaller one is enough." What do we say to our brother and sister UUs when they say that to us?

The UU may not have a common belief, but we have a common culture. We have been the core component of the American liberal religious alternative culture for almost 200 years. Over 200 years, if you want to go back to John Wise's "Vindications of the Governance of New England Churches" in 1772, which was the first document to give the laws of Nature precedence over the laws of Scripture. (I'm researching a post for my own blog.) Over time we have encompassed the changing face of the American liberal religious movement, through the Transcendentalists, the Christian Reformers, the Humanists and now the (not so) "New Age". Now we are told that two brances of this tree, Humanism and the New Age, threaten to split the trunk. That would be very, very foolish. Whichever branch won would split itself off from the rest of its liberal religious heritage in the process.

Clyde Grubbs says:

Paul Wilczynski writes:"I'm starting to get tired of "searching". For a number of years religious educators and clergy have kicked around a concept of new UUs, and middle UUs and deep UUs, sort of stages of religious development theory for Unitarian Universalists. Using this model we have come to understand that have developed a very good orientation to seekers, but we are not good a nurturing UU faith development past the first New UU and Middle UU stages of faith development. At a certain point people become tired of searching, and want to go deeper.

I think some of turnover, and loss of our youth can be attributed to our lack of nurturance of "going deeper."

Lioness talks about our tradition which includes but is not limited to the liberalizing Puritans. I believe that is beginning of "the deep" and that is tradition what William Sinkford is pointing to when he raised the "language of reverence."

I believe that the crisis of Unitarian Universalism, beginning and deepening over the past several decades has been the loss of our sense of identity. That identity is rooted in the liberal religious tradition. The Humanist Manifesto movement contained within its rhetoric a "brave new world" orientation, "let us start again, free from the rubber bands of the past."

Martin Gatheringwater uses Mason Olds definition of religious humanism. (see his link above) I think that definition is too narrow. I think we are a religious movement rooted in a humanism that does not reject the religions of the world, that sees the religions as wisdom traditions, and as expressions of human beings struggle to understand the cosmos and their place in it. Thus the religious humanism that I believe is our common heritage includes John Wise, and Erasmus, includes the Buddha and Jesus too! If we allow an outside organization, the American Humanist Association to define humanism for us we will have a very difficult conflict in the coming years.

We have an extraordinary heritage and it can unite new UUs, and middle UUs and deeper and deeper UUs. We have a heritage and it can unite those who find meaning in Christianity, and those who find meaning in Buddhism, and those who find meaning in earth centered traditions, and those who cherish the historic humanism of the centuries.

Those who advance the party line of an outside organization may not like it, but we have a core tradition.

Jason Pitzl-Waters says:

I'm mature enough to find all the references to the "New Age" to be cute (what is this 1985?). But I think everyone here should realize that Pagan/Neopagan adherants find the term, and being lumped in with, "New Agers" as an insult. "New Age" from a Pagan perspective means someone who pays large amounts of money for spiritual teaching, usually from a "guru", and who has little depth when it comes to spiritual/religious belief. I merely remark.

In reference to the larger issue, I'm often amazed at how dismissive hUUmanists and UU Christians are of modern UU Pagans. I often get the feeling that we are the unwanted wild card in the battle between theism and humanism in UU. Despite our booming numbers I have never heard a UU talk about trying to attract more of us to the fold. In the battle over language it seems to be a battle over Christian terminology or humanistic terms (I think "circle" and "grove" would be very nice terms for UU groups). I hear humanists grumble about UU Christians "taking over" UU when UU Pagans outnumber UU Christians. Yet despite all this UU youth are turning to modern Paganism and modern Pagans keep joining UU churches.

I joined so I could find a place where my theological views would be accepted as a part of a larger tapestry of belief and community. But I have to say I have been rather annoyed by how good UUs have become at ignoring us. I sometimes wonder if we offend the rest of the theological sub-groupings in the UU world, I also wonder what our collective future as part of UU is. I want to stay, and as I study religion in school I would like UU to be my "home base". But I don't think I'll stand for the subtle put-downs and general sense that my faith community within UU can be ignored with no consequence.

So what would make me leave? I will leave when it becomes clear that my faith will never earn a true place at the table. The jury is still out. But I'm optimistic. I have to say I'm quite curious about what "Engaging Our Theological Diversity" has to say about the place of modern Paganism in the greater UU family.

Clyde Grubbs says:

The New Age was announced on Broadway in 1968 and we can see a general search for spiritual meaning in the generation that came of age during those years and after. That included Christians, Jews, seekers after Buddhism and Hinduism, seeker after Native America's insights....the new age isn't about pagans (alone.)

The lyrics that follow are "Aquarius"... a song in the musical Hair, soon after we saw Jesus Christ Superstar and Godspell. It wasn't just about pagans. And we began to experience the impact on our youth and young adults in those years. This is not a new phenomeon, even if some are only beginning to notice.

the song.....

When the moon is in the Seventh House
and Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars

This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius
The age of Aquarius
Aquarius! Aquarius!

Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystal revelation
And the mind's true liberation
Aquarius! Aquarius!

When the moon is in the Seventh House
and Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars

This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius
The age of Aquarius
Aquarius! Aquarius!

As our hearts go beating through the night
We dance unto the dawn of day
To be the bearers of the water
Our light will lead the way

We are the spirit of the age of Aquarius
The age of Aquarius
Aquarius! Aquarius!

Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
Angelic illumination
Rising fiery constellation
Travelling our starry courses
Guided by the cosmic forces
Oh, care for us; Aquarius

I think many Unitarian Universalists have taken "New Age seeker spirituality" seriously, and responded with a spiritual and religious tradition that has been and will be more enduring and deeper than what show tunes can offer.

Lioness says:

Jason: In reference to the larger issue, I'm often amazed at how dismissive hUUmanists and UU Christians are of modern UU Pagans. I often get the feeling that we are the unwanted wild card in the battle between theism and humanism in UU. Despite our booming numbers I have never heard a UU talk about trying to attract more of us to the fold.

Jason, I've heard from UUs who attend churches that only recruit Pagans. It's not your local church and it's definately not my local church, but it's happening and it's part of the general "divisiveness" we're talking about. As Matthew made it clear in his opening, there's a widespread perception that all the Pagans have to do is wait for the atheists to die off. BTW it isn't just UUs who believe this; a UU was once told it by a Fundamentalist who had learned it at a Fundy conference.

As a UU Pagan I'm aware of the dismissive use of the term "New Age" in Modern Pagan circles, however it is the best umbrella term for the DIY nature of the current American liberal religious movement. You might try _Nature Religion in America from the Algonkian Indians to the New Age_ by Catherine Albanese. It traces the development of the American New Age/New Pagan movement from the first settlers up to Starhawk and makes an excellent companion to Hutton's _Triumph of the Moon_.

Liberal Christians, New Agers, Pagans, Humanists, the self-help movement...we're all branches of the American Liberal Religious Tree. If we can't recognize that we all spring from the same source, how can we nurture each other on our journies? And how will we recognize the next branch that mighty old tree is going to grow?

Lioness says:

Clyde, could you talk some more about "deep UUs"? All I could google was this: http://www.uua.org/YRUU/governance/15yr/progress.htm This concept could be very helpful in finding a way towards a diverse-but-united UU.

Jeff Wilson says:

This is sort of a sidetrack, but I thought it would be interesting to point out that when folks in American Religious Studies examine what we call "New Age," the overwhelming majority of such practitioners are Christians, often members of specific churches. Granted, there is a perception in some other circles that New Age refers specifically to Neo-Pagans and fellow travelers, but that's not how I use the term. And let me second the recommendation of Albanese's book, she's a top scholar in the field. I would say though that she's not necessarily tracing a unified lineage, so much as tracing the evolution of a type of idea in American religion more broadly.

Clyde Grubbs says:

Lioness asked me to elaborate a little more than I have, regarding what seems to be an antique concept of UU faith development.

I can't find the original documents either, I think that I could find some of the original material if I picked Gene Navias brain. Some of the older religious educators are no longer with us, and we do like to reinvent the wheel.

From memory. New UUs are excited with the discovery of that the religion of their dreams actually exists. They are enthusiasts.

Shadow. What is UU is what they discover in their first few Sunday morning services. They tend to make the 7 principles in a set of ideals, and judge people by them. They often don't care about the tradition, or value the heritage. That was then, and this is now.

Middle UUs. More sophisticated than new UUs, have a pretty good idea about the various factions in the UU landscape, and have chosen sides. They are constructing a UU identity out of readily availiable materials. Good customers for Chalice Jewelry, etc.

Know about Emerson, and Ballou, basic history, but haven't worked them into a personal theology. They have been disillusioned in the sense that they know that UU movement isn't the perfect religion that they thought they had found, but the ideals are worth working for. They are developing a loyalty to the congregation in the form that they found it.

Deep UUs have developed a personal understading of the liberal religious tradition, that allows them to think about ideas independently from authority figures (their minister, their favorite lay leader) and congregational consensus. They understand that the UU movement works by democracy, and that things like Principles and Purposes are result of committee compromise. They trust the process, and find humor in the results. They have been disillusioned more than once, and developed a loyalty to religious liberalism that goes beyond an transient form of religious liberalism. They had seen the fads come and go. They have can embrace co religionists from many different factions, and points of view. A deep UU Christian can be mentor to a UU humanist without trying to "convert" the mentee, and vice versa and so on....pagans, buddhists...

They have once again become enthusiasts, but on a more solid and less fragile basis. They have seen their congregation change, and they forgave the change. Or they have found another congregation and accepted that it is indeed a UU congregation just like their ideal first home.

In other words the UU journey involves giving up the transitory, and embracing those things that abide.

The purpose of the development list was to guide religious educators and preachers

to help us as we develp the Sunday service, and adult RE classes... aiming both to welcome the seeker, consolidate the newer member, and support the committed toward a mature autonomous faith rooted in deep liberal values, sustained by transforming heritage.

I will post what documents I can find on my weblog in the near future.

Just a Unitarian says:

This all goes back, I believe, to the U-U merger. I'm beginning to bet that the majority of UUs have the wrong impression. You see, the U-U merger was not a merger of two religions, it was a consolidation of two religious organizations (an organization does not a religion make). The Unitarian and Universalist religions individually were not, in my estimation, supposed to be done away with or joined together like water and lemon. The old AUA and UCA became one organization as a matter of financial survival and less membership turn-over.

Oddly, both Unitarians and Universalists thought they had to mesh their religions together because they shared the same association, which was a false assumption. Yet that is what happened. Over the years a "UU identity" and a "UU message" began to develop and is still developing.

I, along with many others such as the Rev. Earl Holt III (King's Chapel), am willing and capable of defending the hypothesis that UUism is no longer a continuation of either of the two traditions/religions, and that UUism was not supposed to reach such a point. The reason why UUism is complex and lost is because we lack a spiritual center. An empty bag cannot stand on its own.

Jonathan Roudabush says:

I would feel unwelcome, and I will feel unwelcome the day we stop talking about our diversity of thought and settle on not reasoning and raising the question at hand, what ever that is. When we as congregations stop questioning each others statements of belief I am gone. Not for the obvious reason, but at that point I have nothing more to learn here, nothing to give and nothing to gain.

Paul says:

Ohrenstein had a valid point! Today there is a distinct difference between a Unitarian and a Unitarian Universalist. We have strayed from our Christian roots and it has taken its toll. The vitality of our faith is lacking and many UUs as some like to be called have no idea what a Unitarian is !

Jaume says:

IMO we need to trascend old religions, stop being dependent on other religious labels as shown in "hyphenations", and develop a distinct UU religious personality that finds inspiration in older traditions, but that aspires to go beyond them and be a meaningful spirituality for people living in the 21st century. This distinct personality is already there if you watch carefully: the chalice lighting, the flower communion, a theological approach that is both naturalistic and aspiring to a higher concept such as the interdependent web, etc. We need to refine and deepen those intuitions that are present already in most of our churches and societies.

I certainly wouldn't like to be a part of a UU movement that becomes a "mini-parliament of religions": there is already the interfaith movement for that kind of approach, which is fine as it is. I also wouldn't like that UUism becomes the "light", saccarine version, of every other religion that you can find around and which are too strict in their original version for the liberal taste.

What I want in UUism is a modern faith with a personality of its own, rooted in history but aware of our present and our social and cultural context, giving meaning and hope to its members now and ready to provide answers for the future. We can make it possible and the CoA report seems to point in that direction.

Jaume says:

A comment to Nancy's words about the Baha'i Faith: They did not grow because they decided to be interfaith. The Baha'is have NEVER been interfaith. They are a messianic religion based upon revelation given to a single individual. They believe in One God, One Religion and One World only because their prophet told them so. And the Baha'is grew in the 60s and 70s because they have been carrying on missionary plans for decades, moving believers to new countries to spread the faith as much as Mormons do. Now they are quite stuck in numbers and real membership figures are not being released because the real numbers may be much lower than what the official propaganda says.

Doug Muder says:

To me, the center and key selling point of UUism is that you can be honest about what you really think and believe. In credal religions you have to confess the creed in public, even if you don't really believe it. And all your conversations occur in the shadow of the official doctrine.

The UU freedom to be honest brings with it the freedom to experiment. If a new idea sounds interesting, you can look into it without hiding your books from your friends. If a new technique or practice appeals, you can take the workshop without feeling that you're being disloyal to your faith community.

I would be opposed to any point-of-view dominating UUism to the point that it interferes with honesty and experimentation. At times this happens, I know. (In my experience, I've felt the most pressure to conform coming from the humanists, but I don't doubt that other groups do it too.) But the ideal that I want for our communities is to be places of honesty and experimentation.

Just a Unitarian says:

I reiterate: there is a Unitarian identity. There is a Universalist identity. But there can never be a U-U identity. UUism is doomed to remain an umbrella religion (interfaith) that panders to all points of view for the sake of higher membership numbers. It is a shame. But that is the cold hard truth.

Lioness says:

Jonathon there are questions that move you further along on your journey, and then there's the member who asks you, "Are you sure it's God? I mean, really sure? You can't really know for sure, can you?" every single Sunday. The former tests your understanding, the latter tests your patience. The latter are unfortuantely far more common at our local church than the former.

Clyde Grubbs says:

"Just a Unitarian" insists that there is no U-U identity. He argues that there is a Unitarian identity, and a Universalist identity...but the merger created an umbrella religion that "panders."

Each of us has their own experience, and it is possible that "Just a Unitarian" has never experienced a UU congregation that celebrates the wisdom of the worlds religions while remaining true to its own identity, but I have. I have either participated in, or served some twelve historic Unitarian, historic Universalist, or newer (founded since the merger) Unitarian Universalist congregations. Each and every one of them had a unique congregational identity, which sustained the faithful and attracted newer seekers.

Visitors would come to these unique congregations from other unique congregations, congregations associated with the UUA but congregations with their own identity. Some were just passing through town, some were relocating. The congregations they came from were different, but somehow they shared some ideals, stories, practices, and visions in common. Thus the visitors from other UU congregations and those who were 'transfering' from one congregation to another experienced some common identity.

I agree that our stewardship of the Unitarian tradition, and the Universalist tradition suffered as a result of merger, and I agree that there was an attempt to invent a new identity...but I observe that we have gone back (beginning in the 1980s) and brought forth the stories, visions and ideals of our ancestors into our new community of faith, and Unitarian Universalism today is marked by both continuity and by embrace of an emerging future.

StevenR says:

My tipping point would be when we all start assuming the person beside us HAS to think like us. When we all get too comfy.....
When we dont have to read ahead in the hymnal to make sure we arent saying something we dont believe it.

Jay Conner, San Francisco says:

If one were to DEFINE UUism, that is, draw a circle, and everything within the circle is UU, and everything outside isn't, you would kill it.

Nothing new would be allowed in. Everything old would be frozen.

There would be no problem explaining what you were or where you stood, this would all follow from the definition and the fixed worldview.

Our circle is open, thank God, and you may take that as any metaphor which pleases you.

If you want to see what a UU circle might look like, there is a program called "Kaleidodraw"...

Peacebang says:

I'm glad to hear the emphasis on behavior, because it's a serious problem among us: far more damaging than our theological diversity, which I believe is a red herring.
Someone mentions the example of the secular humanist approaching the supposedly "irrational" Pagan, with ensuing tensions. Well, how would any of us respond when we're asked about our spiritual commitments by someone who is coming at us from a place of suspicion and disrespect? Defensively, of course, and in a truncated, semi-hostile fashion. It's a lose-lose situation. One person shuts down, the other feels justified in their superiority.
If this experience is multiplied many times throughout the community, it's a perfect recipe for permanent mutual resentments, immaturity and clique-formation. Not safe, not healthy, and absolutely business-as-usual in too many of our UU communities.

If UUism is to last beyond the next couple of decades, we have to be willing to make our congregations places of deep unity and serious religious inquiry that leads to religious understanding, not to more terminal uniqueness among us.

The deep unity will not be theological. It will be covenantal, as in, "I vow to ardently support my brothers and sisters of this fellowship in their own search for truth, meaning and spiritual nourishment, and to contribute to this community in ways of love and generosity of spirit, time, energy and wallet. I will find a ministry here and in the world, and assist those of this fellowship in doing the same."

When we achieve that, we'll be less committed to identifying ourselves by whatever hyphenate, and feel that we belong to each other, brothers and sisters on a spiritual journey that gets somewhere beyond negations of what "other" people believe, or what our religion of origin might have taught.

And I think this has to be said: to characterize all fundamentalists as being "brain-washed" is sloppy and mistaken. We have to stop freely insulting entire populations of people whose souls and psyches lead them to radically different faith practices and beliefs than we are led to embrace. They may reach conclusions we find ridiculous, and they may feel compelled by their faith to oppress others in ways we find rephensible, but that doesn't mean they're brain-washed.

Paul says:

I agree with Just A Unitarian.

Lioness says:

Okay, we seem to have seem to have some agreement on the "it's not the creed, it's the behavior" position, tied with the belief that contemporary UU practices are often hostile to minors and newcomers, too shallow, not rooted in our past and seem to discourage a deeper pursuit of spiritual understanding. Does that agree with y'all's assessment?

Clyde, I think you may be on to something with the "deep UUs" table. Before you posted that I was going to say that as a people we needed to grow mature enough that we could shepherd our brother and sister UUs on their own spiritual paths even if they choose paths we would not have chosen. A deeper awareness of our history will certainly help, but we also need to work specifically on our behavior and on how to nuture other liberal religious folk who don't share our particular brand of UU. Because if there's one thing that comes through even the most casual survey of our history, it's that the "flavor" of our faith changes dramatically about every 50-70 years, from Transcendentalist to Christian Reform to Humanist to "Earth based".

As Matthew has pointed out, it's not just "Christian vs. atheist" or even "atheist vs. theist". It's a design element built into our liberal religious tradition. Based on a study of our history, I can tell you two things about the strain of liberal religious thought that will capture the imagination of the next generation of UUs:

1) the principals behind it will proceed logically from existing liberal religious ideas, but

2) the practice will look so strange it'll completely throw folks for a loop.

And then that generation's grandchildren will do the same thing to them. And so on, and so on....

It would save a lot of wear and tear on us all if we could go on and learn the techniques that foster community in such an environment of change and make sure all UUs know and practice them. Change is an inevitable part of religious practice over time, especially liberal religious practice. It would be a good idea to put mechanisms in place so that such change can be experienced without tearing apart our individual congregations and our larger fellowship.

A hinge can screech like a banshee when it moves, or it can be properly oiled and supported when it moves, but you can't stop it moving without destroying it. Me, I'm getting tired of the screeching. I want to figure out how to properly repair and oil the hinge so it will do its job without getting on people's nerves.

Jeff Wilson says:

So, how would we hypothetically go about the process of maturation? That's a real question, not a snark. I'm curious about the details of what people would propose, especially how you'd come up with plans that suited all the various flavors of UUism. How do supposedly shallow people teach themselves to be deep?

Oversoul says:

I don’t agree that UU cannot have an identity, but I do agree that it will fail to do so as long as it is “an umbrella religion (interfaith) that panders to all points of view...”

I’ve been attending a local congregation for a couple of months now, but I don’t know if I want to keep attending, much less join. The reason? While this church is better than the one I’d previously belonged to 10 years ago, it’s still too watered down. There’s a fear of going too far in any direction, so you get a sample of spirituality, even some out and out theism, but no real nourishing depth. If I hear once more that “God” can be interpreted for the theophobic as “Love” or “Community” or “Healing” I’m going to barf.

One of the big themes at this congregation is the “you can come here even if you’re a [insert ideology/theology here]. Hey, we’re about being a home for every kind of theology. You can believe whatever you like.

I can stay home and believe whatever I like, and respect others’ right to do the same; what does UUism have to offer me that I should get out of bed on Sunday morning? How can it feed my soul beyond this very simplistic, in my opinion, aping of popular American culture (I mean religious freedom is enshrined in the Constitution, and even though I was raised Catholic it was a virtue my parents’ preached to me; so joining a church where religious tolerance is the idol on the altar has limited appeal for me-what else ya got?).

Religion is deep, if it is to have meaning. The prevalence and longevity of it in human culture testifies to its necessity and endurance. Judaism (probably 4,000 years old) focuses on the relationship of the Jewish people with the Creator of the Universe, and the ethical and cultural demands and struggles that such a relationship entails. Christianity (2,000 years old) also focuses on the relationship between God and humanity, and the struggle of humanity to reconcile its sometimes wicked behavior with the ideals attributed to God’s nature and our connection to God. Hinduism (6,000 years old, in all it’s various incarnations) offers many paths which lead ultimately (though still requiring patience, discipline and practice) to union with the Divine and liberation from our current form of existence.

What does UUism (44 years old) have to offer that compares with these? What do we have that is different, or unique beyond the generic lack of theology or grounding? How does our way attend to the soul of the mother whose son is killed by a terrorist? How does our way celebrate the joy of a newborn baby? How do we express our faith, and indeed, what is our faith?

Not new questions, but I have seen few answers which address them. I see a lot of fear that if we have any boundaries, any depth ultimately, we’ll no longer be a haven for every religious ideology. If that were the case, why is that so scary?

Lioness says:

Jeff asks a good question. I would like to break it down into four questions:

1) What are we doing well currently?

2) What did we do well in the past that we can start doing well again?

3) What do other liberal organizations do well that we can learn from or what have other liberal organizations done well in the past that we can learn from?

4) What is the Competition doing well that we can learn from? Sociologists have pointed out that members of the Far Right and the Far Left have more in common with each other than they do with members of the mainstream. Both have thought long and hard about the problems in contemporary life before coming up with different answers. There's no question they would do well to learn from us how to handle issues of tolerance. What can they teach us in turn?

I'm sitting on the urge to go off on a rant about the comparative ineffectiveness of contemporary liberal organizations compared with liberal organizations of the past. There's a crippling meme going around that says we have to emasculate our organizations and associations so as to empower our individuals. This completely overlooks the fact that powerful and properly run organizations can teach individuals how to be more powerful, more self-confident and better able to accomplish their goals both individually and *as a group*. Most of y'all know that already and a good number of y'all lived through it, but how do we make it work?

Jaume says:

I disagree with the idea that UUism is "44 years old". This is a confusion between religious tradition(s) and a specific association, a bureaucratic system established in 1961 and later on. Congregations existed before and after the merger. There were congregations in Europe, in the US and in Canada that were consolidations of former Unitarian and Universalist churches and individual believers before the institutional merger took place. I feel part of a branch of a centuries-old tree with roots that reach back down the Reformation and the Enlightenment. I am proud of that legacy. Religious institutions come and go, the tradition and the legacy and the stories and examples of our heroes and heroines remain.

Oversoul says:

Yes, Unitarianism and Universalism are older than 44 years, but we can't pretend that a tradition called UUism wasn't created post merger. That doesn't mean that Universalism and Unitarianism didn't or don't continue to exist as well. But I think the three are, or at least can be, somewhat different things. Part of the question I'm asking is, just how different and what specifically does it mean to be a UU.

Shawn says:

I have been reflecting on the CAO's report and have been stumped for days by a question raise in my personal reading of the stats within the report. If any of you can straighten this out I would be very appreciative.

1. The author seemingly predicts that this internal theological issue is manifesting most dangerously in the ministerial search process. The author cites evidence that most theological school students preparing for the UU pulpit are theists, while the majority of churches they will be applying for are obviously not. These churches, according to the report, are largely "eclectic, with humanism remaining prominent." The report goes on to state, "These observations raise the possibility that, in the future, there may be an increasing disparity between the theological views of UU ministers and the congregations looking to call them" (34).

2. The report also cites a December 24, 2001 article in USA Today which points out that "unbelief is rocketing, up from 8% in 1990 to 14% saying they have no religion or they are atheist, agnostic, humanist, or secular" (35). This trend is contrasted to the only other available option, according to the article, which is "Traditional Faith" (the two streams, or alternatives).

Now, this is where I become confused:

Q. If 1. is the case, then how is page 47's 2nd paragraph suggestion that "most UUs surveyed are intuitives" true? The report goes on to say, "In the Commission's small sample of UU lay respondents, 49% of men and 70% of women identified as Feeling" (47). If this is indeed the case, then why does the difficulty and future warning of 1. even exist? My question is not focused directly upon Intuition or Feeling. I believe both a theist and humanist has natural access to both. My question concerns the larger demographic of the collective congregation, as represented by these numbers. I'm unsure as to how a truly Intuitive and Feeling Association could cause so much difficulty for Theist pastoral applicants. Something is off on one side of this equation or the other, or is it?

Q. If 2. is the continuing trend, and, according to page 47's 2nd paragraph statistical description of the general population, studies do suggest that "39% of men and 68% of women prefer Feeling modes," then wouldn't it be a poor institutional choice to adjust in such a direction as regards the long-term future (trending 100 years into the future), especially if one considers the use of the word/concept "Feeling" as it relates to the general population? IMHO, 39% is not a good number to adjust toward; 68% may be, if it is an authentic reflection of a "Spiritual Type" of "Feeling," but "Feeling" extracted from the general population probably hints to other definitions. I'm left wondering. In the report's defense, these general population statistics are listed generically as "studies" under the heading of "Spiritual Types." I wish more information regarding the applicability of the two was provided. Also, in terms of numbers what does the 39% of men and 68% of women actually calculate?

The reports says, in a number of different places, something to the effect that "these lay samples are too small to permit any definitive statement." This statement, again, is mentioned in a number of different manners, but it is mentioned repeatedly. I think this should be taken into deep c