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 consideration before making any organizational adjustments. These adjustments, though well intentioned, may have seriously counterproductive results.

IMHO, any serious religion of the future is going to have to be naturalistic and religiously humanistic, while authentically relying upon and incorporating myth, story, sacred literature, and spirituality. I think the UUA's biggest problem - ironically enough - is the later.

Spirituality is something given much lip service in our churches. I have personally been to several, multiple times, and have yet to experience the slightest invitation to "discipleship," for the lack of a better word. This may not be the case in the entire Association, but it has been my overall experience thus far. Discipleship is what the general population shops for, and it is why they are filling conservative pews.

We spend a lot of time on intellectual - and mostly irrelevant - speeches, activism, and arguing over our internal pluralism. In the process the pulpit is maligned. There is very little instruction on living coming from the front of our churches. I know full well that liberals still struggle with the same things conservatives struggle with in their everyday lives. We all are, after all, human beings. We still have stress, money problems, emotional issues, family crisis, death (are we really preparing our people for death?), and questions regarding love. Are we, as pastors, really walking alongside of our parishioners and guiding them through this life? Are we challenging them to love their seemingly unlovable neighbors? Are we asking them to deeply embrace sacrifice? Are we leading them toward the needy all around us? Are we challenging them to expand their ideologies? Are we teaching them to love scandalously?

Unfortunately, I would say not.

Changing the UUA by adjusting the institution and ignoring the present weakness of the pastoral role is tantamount to the attempt to build a new house around old furniture, with the vain hopes of somehow improving the furniture.

This is, IMHO - again IMHO -, the reason we lack a voice.

Capping diversity in a world that so very desperately needs honest pluralism is no way to fix an institutional problem which is rooted elsewhere. It would be the equivalent of enacting a Patriot Act to protect our liberties. No one here would do that, would they?

Our theological core, and our institutional identity could be greatly benefited by leaving the house alone and adjusting the furniture. In other words, if we place a more demanding focus on the minister, and perhaps better training, an institutional and definitive religious identity would naturally emerge. Diversity, naturalism, and those human beings who happen to think differently would not become collateral damage of a selfish need to save a mere institution by avoiding the true problem.

These are just my personal reflections upon the COA report. I in no way mean to imply this is the case in every UU congregation. I'm still reflecting ... so be kind.

Chalicechick says:

Responding to the original question, I can't seriously imagine decamping ever, to be honest. I mean, I think I would bitch a whole lot, but whatever happened, I think I would probably sigh, roll my eyes and wait it out.

That having been said, the biggest threat to my comfort within UUism is liberal politics. Sometimes, liberal politics seems like a great short-term solution to exactly these problems. If we have a sermon about theology, some people will bitch. But if we have a sermon on protecting a woman's right to choose, then everyone will like it. So let's talk about politics a whole lot because that makes our theological differences easier to ignore! And we can feel that we are making actual change!

I worry that liberal politics is defining more and more of who we are, and indeed we are defining ourselves with it. (E.g. I've skimmed someone else's COA report, but don't have one myself yet. From what I could see, the COA's chief suggestion for serving the holy was to do social justice work. That can be a component, but to have it the only idea suggests a huge failure of religious imagination. I hope I skimmed badly.)

I love that my church is run democratically, but sometimes that frightens me because I know that people in large groups often like to take the easy way out. It is so easy to attract people with our politics, yet lots of the people who get attracted that way only seem to be here for the politics. Having them discounting the value of the worship service in our congregational surveys, giving lay services on politics, and sending more and more money toward social justice in the budget is scary to me.

AND it contributes to the very idea that one can't be a religious liberal which we are trying to combat. After all, if the biggest religious liberal church is doing everything it can to be political rather than religious because the people don't want religion, then the conservatives are right.

Jason PW: MY bad impression of Pagans came from a Pagan minister I had who literally told us Pagans were trying to take over, that as a group they hadn't had any national structure, so they were trying to take ours. I think we've talked about this before and you assured me the guy was a nutjob, which I'm more than willing to believe for other reasons. But I'd heard people advance this theory before. That may be the big impression we need to correct.

General Questions:

1. Is "it works for Christian mega-churches, so it will probably work for UUs" valid thinking? I can't fathom that it is, but people keep saying things like that.

2. To what degree is the theological language we're talking about Christian language? As someone who was raised Christian,the point first raised by Nancy that "grace", "salvation", "gospel" were not religious terms to anybody but Christians wasn't immediately obvious, but I see it now. Looking at it that way, I'm sort of appalled at the idea that the "language of reverence" must automatically be the "language of Christianity."

Has anyone pro-language of reverence given any thought to inbcluding non-Christian language? (And if doing so would be an afterthought, what does that mean?) Because Nancy's right, all the terms one hears tossed around when this thing is debated are Christian.

3. Are there really a bunch of UU churches where you can't read the bible? I've run across one, but on the whole, my churches have been pretty accepting of it. But I hear people bitch all the time that bible readings aren't allowed and I find this confusing and really far from my own experience.

4. I guess my questions here all surround the central point "What relationship should we have to Christianity?" I don't want to deny our historical roots, yet I am really concerned that we are taking ourselves in a "Hey, let's be the UCC, but, you know, less so" direction and that would suck.

CC

Scott Wells says:

ChaliceChick, I'm absolutely certain I know the nasty, presumptuous Pagan minister you met and I got the same treatment. (Email me privately if you want confirmation.) I've never been so close to slugging someone in my whole life. But didn't; I figured he was trying to provoke me to make a point, so I drowned him in syrup and sent him on his way.

Don't worry: a lot of the clergy have got his number and whatever one can say about the (neo-)Pagans in the UUA, I have to treat this one as an abberation and not reflective of the whole.

That's not to say a little intra-Pagan policing wouldn't be useful.

Oversoul says:

You know ironically the minister started the service last Sunday with the usual “you can come here and be [whatever you like]” and one of the specific whatevers was “Democrat or Republican.” I was shocked; he spoke the R word in church and no one attacked him! ;)

“Is "it works for Christian mega-churches, so it will probably work for UUs" valid thinking? I can't fathom that it is, but people keep saying things like that.”

Yeah I have to agree, I don’t want to attend a mega-church; they too lack the depth I’m searching for. Religion is not entertainment.

“To what degree is the theological language we're talking about Christian language?”

I think Nancy is overreacting; I think all of those terms, with the possible exception of gospel, are generic in their religious usage. Grace is an idea that is not solely Christian; Buddhists belong to Buddhist churches; Konko has very specific teachings on salvation.

chutney says:

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.

Peacebang: This is beautiful. And it should be read responsively by all members whenever new folks "sign the book." Here here.

chutney says:

Clyde,

I think you're onto something with your developmental schema. But I don't think it measures what you think it does. Instead of faith development, I think it measures assimilation into the culture of the UUA. That's fine enough as it is, but faith development it is not.

I worked for five years for James Fowler, who literally wrote the book on Stages of Faith. Until someone proves him wrong (no one has in twenty years), it details the only schema of faith development available to us as a species, whatever our religious persuasion. We could do a lot by translating his work better into UU-speak.

UU faith development efforts continue to aim squarely at the individuative-reflective stage, a stage that appears in late adolescence. This puts us ahead of most religous groups (says Fowler). But if that's as high as we aim, we will find ourselves with a late-adolescent faith culture, and all the talk in this thread about religious cliques (pagan, humanist, Christian, etc.) makes me think this is already the case.

My experience as a youth director taught me that the best way to break up cliques is to contrive situations where the "clickers" have to see each other as valuable and dependable persons (a ropes course usually does this, for example). Are we willing to "force" each other into situations where this will happen?

My hunch is that UUism's late adolescence will rear its ugly head and say, "No, you can't make me do anything I don't want to do. I'm going to the mall!" But I honestly hope that's not the case. Because otherwise we will have a tough time encouraging the conjunctive-ironic stage of middle adulthood, which appreciates the unity admidst difference and contradiction, without trying to water anything down or cut off the rough edges. If the P&P are who we'd like to be, then the conjunctive stage is where we should be aiming faith development-wise.

PeaceBang says:

Two thoughts: "discipleship" (by whatever name) is too often solely defined among UUs in terms of liberal political activism. Discipleship isn't just about social justice work "out there," of course. It's about being willing to transform one's inner life. That's why I never get tired of studying and praying with the old "self-culture" Unitarians. They knew they needed to be conformed to Christ before they could do good works in the world, if that work was to truly be grounded in the religious instinct.

(I'm using the Christian frame because that's what they used -- that's not to say that there aren't other systems that could do the same thing with equal beauty -- humanistic, theistic, western or non-western).

About Christian language as the default "language of reverence:" I appreciate whoever pointed out that other traditions also use the same language on occasion (eg, salvation). However, the value of wrestling with traditional Christian language is that most of our people come to our congregations with at least an acquaintance with those terms (either from a church past or just from living in Western culture), so why not start there? Not to totally re-define them to our satisfication so that they become comfy Care Bear concepts (a trend I truly loathe) but to help us interpret those words in the light of our OWN theological heritage -- not merely to react AGAINST the definitions insisted upon by conservatives or fundamentalists. We should all have this knowledge whether we use it explicitly or not. I do not recommend that we gain this knowledge in a spirit of defensive spiritual warfare, but in a spirit of confidence and fellowship with other free churches (and temples) that use this language, and who must struggle with it.

(I so look forward to the day that UU congregations, in their worship, either pray for or lift up in the spirit of fellowship OTHER communities of faith that we feel kin to. We so rarely do this. Terminal uniqueness! Terminal uniqueness! Our idol.)

It's all too easy to skip brightly over into someone else's tradition and co-opt their language of reverence, as the COA points out in their discussion of "exoticizing" non-Western traditions. Their point, and I think it's a very important one, is that it's been too easy for UUs to uncritically accept the religious language of non-Western religions while assiduously avoiding the ones bequeathed us by the the Biblical faiths.

Chalicechick says:

Hmm...

I'm having trouble with the difference between redefining a term and interpreting it in a different light.

For example, here I look at the concept of sin as the OED defines it, as a Mormon receptionist whom I picked solely because she was the only one around at the time defines it and as I personally define it. (In the interests of not retyping, you kinda have to follow the link to understand the rest of my post.)

The OEDs is probably the textbook definition. I'd say the receptionist's definition hits the high points of how her tradition sees the term. Mine is loosely Tillich, which would be well in keeping with my own personal tradition's teachings as my folks were great admirers of Tillich, but is not precisely a Unitarian perspective.

Would those three be what you're getting at? If not, can I get another example?

CC

Jeff Wilson says:

I've been exploring the idea of kinship among various faiths on my blog recently, centering around the theological concept of Universalism. Maybe this is where we have to go for such things, to core concepts rather than specific language or motifs. Because, I have to agree that the "language of reverance" seems very Christian to me. I say this as a lifelong UU who has never been a Christian, but who is also relatively comfortable with Christianish UU language. I don't agree that concepts like salvation etc. don't carry specifically Christian baggage with them. To the extent that non-Christians such as myself use them, it is because that's what non-mainstream groups are forced to do whenever they participate with a dominant group. But when there's no Christians around, salvation, gospel, etc. never come up. It's a strained language that often doesn't accurately get at the crucial ideas that other religions seek to convey. The same goes in other directions too--I doubt the Buddhist terms I'm familiar and comfortable with would do such a great job at conveying essentially Christian concepts. I'm not talking about the value of any particular language or religion, just the real difficulty of cross-religious communion.

None of which is to suggest that religions shouldn't look for things in other groups to applaud or dialogue on, or that the UU "language of reverance" trend is necessarily stuck with a fatal flaw due to its obvious Christian bias (OK, maybe we should say Christian-influenced theistic bias?). But I do think its easy to assume that a familiar language is universal and unbiased when really its just entrenched.

Lioness says:

Has any work been done on "The Stages of Faith for the Liberal Religious and How to Assist the Journey?"

Oversoul says:

Maybe we should just stop using any religious language at all, and turn ourselves into a purely social club? We could call ourselves The Weekly Gathering Club.

chutney says:

Oddly enough, Fowler's book "Becoming Adult, Becoming Christian" would probably suffice, if you used your UU decoder ring. Actually, he's a liberal Methodist and likes UUs, so it doesn't need a whole lot of translating to begin with. (The title sucks, or at least that's the general consensus I've heard. It's more about gifts and vocation than Christianity per se.)

He also has an older book on applying Stages to pastoral care (haven't read it though).

Lioness says:

Jeff, the problem is that a lot of younger people coming along now have had such violently negative experiences with Fundamentalist Christianity they can't experience Christian language as anything other than a negative. When the "concerned" members of your family's church have ransacked your house, thrown all of what they consider questionable books and material into the front yard and set fire to it, and when you try to call the sherrif he tells you it was "for your own good" you have trouble considering anything about Christianity in a neutral light. Not every ex-Christian's experience is that bad of course. Many are better. Some are even worse. But it does leave folks with serious issues about Christian-sounding language.

I know, I know. As I tell my shrink, "If my problems were EASY to solve, I wouldn't be sitting here thrashing them out with you!"

chutney says:

the problem is that a lot of younger people coming along now have had such violently negative experiences with Fundamentalist Christianity they can't experience Christian language as anything other than a negative.

Can't? Or won't? I've also had horrible experiences with fundamentalism, so I know the path to recovery is a hard one. All the more reason we shouldn't let people simply refuse to recover. We don't need to be encouraging "dry" fundamentalism.

Jason Pitzl-Waters says:

"That's not to say a little intra-Pagan policing wouldn't be useful."

I think outsiders have little notion of how much policing we actually do. Our struggle to minimize the effect of bad teachers and leaders has been ongoing. Like other young faiths experiencing explosive growth we have had to deal with our share of hucksters and cons. I think modern Pagans despite the bad experiences a few have had offer (and give) a lot to the modern UU experience and community.

Jeff Wilson says:

This problem of traumatized ex-Christians has always concerned me. On the one hand, I feel for people with negative childhood experiences of religion (not confined to Christianity, even in the USA, by any means), and UU churches should be safe places where folks can find religious shelter. I'm very wary of people who think those who had awful experiences should just "get over it." It seems both harsh and unrealistic.

But on the other hand, I had a GREAT childhood religious upbringing and I can see how it has benefitted me in many ways, both religiously and otherwise. And one of the benefits of that upbringing is the lack of bitterness toward any religion, including the dominant and sometimes hair-raising Christianity of America (my apologies to non-USA readers, I can only speak to my own experiences). I want newer UUs to reach that same place, because I find it valuable and it seems like a hell of a lot less stressful. Also, to be frank, I don't consider my religion to be about catering to the anger of newcomers, or still angry older members. I do not consider a negative approach to religion ("I'm a UU because I don't want any part of that God-stuff/whatever I was raised with") to be very healthy, as opposed to a positive approach ("I'm a UU because I believe in the transformative power of universal love/whatever"). That's why I find this idea of developing programs that can deepen UUs (and help them work through and release certain baggage) appealing.

But I also find it good in conception, very difficult in execution. I doubt that the same program will work for everyone, and I'm not even sure what the goal is or how to tell when someone has reached it. Nor do I feel like compelling reluctant people to participate sounds good. There's a stereotype of the angry ex-Christian UU who doesn't want anything to do with theism and raises a ruckus whenever a hymn or prayer smells a little bit of Jesus. Actually, it isn't just a stereotype, we all probably know someone who fits this profile, though it's a very unfair view to take toward the majority of UUs from a Christian background. Do we kick this person out if after a certain grace period, he/she still refuses to "get treatment?" What about the person who goes through the program and comes out the other side with hate still in his/her heart?

I also wonder how any sort of even semi-mandatory program could be set up in current UU churches. More likely, this would have to a para-church program, something put on by another (possibly UU-run) organization. Or we'd even have to found new churches with overt mandates toward healing religious wounds and pushing people toward a deeper form of spirituality. I can even think of a name for this new type of UU institution, they could be called Covenant Churches. Or, Covenant Churches could be like the Welcoming Church movement, where current UU churches go through a training period, then vote whether to become officially Welcoming.

chutney says:

Jeff,

I don't think anyone is suggesting we mandate religious recovery. I've noticed that my fellow UUs often view a proposal that we stand for this or that position or program as a suggestion to mandate x. And/or an assumption that it couldn't be done without a mandate. That's not a marker of a healthy spiritual imagination.

In healthy evangelical churches, for example, there are common practices to guide new folks into "the way we do things here." This is done through membership classes and by a practice of gently pulling folks aside when they cross a line. It's not done judgmentally (in healthy churches). New folks either appreciate the lovingly drawn boundary or they leave for a community that allows x.

As a recovering fundamentalist, I feel very free to tell my fellow recovering fundies to "get over it." But woe be unto him/her who ain't one who says it. And don't be mocking Jan Crouch or Benny Hinn unless you sent them your Christmas money too---those are my people you're talking about.

Why do we need a certain endpoint to be able to judge success? Wouldn't deliberately facilitating the healing process itself be quite a success? Still, there are identifiable markers of recovery: forgiveness, compassion, letting go, learning to claim your own painful past as a life-giving legacy. If we can't tell when these things happen, either we're not in relationship with folks or we have no spiritual radar. Neither is good.

Sometime I feel UU culture is like the college professor who believes he teaches by the Socratic method. But instead of asking folks the hard questions that force them to dig out the wisdom they have buried in their own souls, he actually just has no control over the class, no lesson plan, and gets little teaching done. The students grow frustrated with the lack of direction while the prof thinks he's liberating them by providing no structure.

Jeff Wilson says:

That's interesting, Chutney. The UU churches I've attended DID have those sort of membership classes, and often had people who were willing to gently point out problems when someone crossed a line (sometimes had people who weren't so gentle as well!). I just figured every church did this, or at least the majority of them. Therefore, I assume we're talking about doing something in addition to this, offering some other sort of program. But I'm still trying to figure out what it is exactly that people have in mind. I'm wondering what the actual course of action would look like, what it's content would be, beyond agreeing that there's a problem and saying "we need to be deep." That this topic struck enough of a nerve to get 70+ comments means there's a phenomenon here that a range of UUs have noticed and feel some concern over, even if it isn't actually the thread that Matthew originally started.

I had to look up Jan Crouch and Benny Hinn, I've never heard of them before. From I saw they appear to be Charismatic Christians of some sort, maybe Pentecostals? Anyway, your analogy of the befuddled professor is cutting but sadly has a ring of truth to it.

Oversoul says:

“Also, to be frank, I don't consider my religion to be about catering to the anger of newcomers, or still angry older members.”

At the risk of using controversial language, Amen! People who have suffered real abuse need real professional help. Avoiding any mainstream Western religious terminology is not helping them. They need a doctor who can work with them, not a congregation who tip-toes around them.

People whose religious upbringing was unsatisfactory, however, need to learn to expand their thinking to understand that liberal religion and traditional religion are not the same thing. To use an analogy, the US and Ireland both have Presidents, but they are very different roles.

“Do we kick this person out if after a certain grace period, he/she still refuses to "get treatment?" What about the person who goes through the program and comes out the other side with hate still in his/her heart?”

Unless they behave inappropriately (and I mean seriously inappropriately) I don’t think kicking them out is the answer; I do think that part of the unhappy job of the minister may be to counsel this person on his/her issues.

“The students grow frustrated with the lack of direction while the prof thinks he's liberating them by providing no structure.”

Yeah…

Lioness says:

Jeff, you can't mandate healing. You can model healing however. As we've noted before, a large part of the problem seems to be behavioral. Many of our people have minimal exposure to healthy religious attitudes and behavior. If a sufficient percentage of the congregation has worked out their hangups, then typically the newcomer will gradually relax and begin following their lead. It may take years of course, and it really needs a deeper expenditure of time than just a 1-hour service every Sunday, but it usually works.

There are many programs available for youth-RE and adult-RE. Why not develop a three-step program that churches could use in their RE program (or one of their RE programs), something like "UU 101", "UU 201", and "UU 301"?

We might also want to consider, either as part of that series or a seperate program, a program on "Liberal Etiquette". Tolerance is no excuse for bad manners, but it is often used as such. Just to use one example, how many of us have been to meetings that always start late? "Oh it's okay, we're on UU time." or "Pagan time" or "insert-your-own-liberal-excuse time". But it shows disrespect to the people we are with and the cause which has brought us together. That intiial disrespect makes it hard to take what we're doing seriously. I'm sure you can think of other examples, but it seems to me that sort of thing eats away at the greater unity and harmony we are trying to promote. YMMV

Chalicechick says:

((Maybe we should just stop using any religious language at all, and turn ourselves into a purely social club? We could call ourselves The Weekly Gathering Club.)))

Hey, O-soul, if you have a real response to Jeff's concerns, I, for one, am open to hearing it.

Otherwise, what say we follow Thumper's mother's rule and not be randomly dismissive without adding anything useful to the conversation.

I mean, we get that the opposite of your position taken to the extreme is bad, but that happens to be true of the opposites of everyone else's positions taken to the extreme as well.

I like Lioness' suggestion of just setting a good example. Really, even something as simple as PB's reminding us that calling religious conservatives "brainwashed" isn't cool was pretty effective right here. It's true that only two churches I've ever attended repeatedly had the critical mass of bitter people. the other churches I'm sure had them, but they weren't a force because they were such a small percentage.

Jeff nicely sums up some of my concerns about Christian language when he writes:

" I don't agree that concepts like salvation etc. don't carry specifically Christian baggage with them. To the extent that non-Christians such as myself use them, it is because that's what non-mainstream groups are forced to do whenever they participate with a dominant group. But when there's no Christians around, salvation, gospel, etc. never come up. It's a strained language that often doesn't accurately get at the crucial ideas that other religions seek to convey. The same goes in other directions too--I doubt the Buddhist terms I'm familiar and comfortable with would do such a great job at conveying essentially Christian concepts. I'm not talking about the value of any particular language or religion, just the real difficulty of cross-religious communion."

I know that Christians used to be the dominant group within UUism. I know they are still the dominant group in America. Probably making ourselves a watered-down UCC would get us a whole lot of new faces, which might make us a greater force for good within the world.

But I still hate the idea.

CC

Lioness says:

Thank you CC, but I wouldn't say "just" setting a good example. Setting a good example is hard work. It really needs to have the various components that make up a good example reiterated in public, and very public positive feedback given to those who do it. That way gives everybody encouragement to continue in that direction.

There's two problems that I see. The first problem is how do you define and set up a "UU 301" or "deep UU" program such as Clyde and Chutney have talked about, but I believe those more learned than I in ministering will have some ideas along that line.

The second problem is what to do about the widespread indifference, antipathy and hostility exhibited by many UU churches towards children and youth. That's tricky, but it's hard to imagine a "deep UU" program for youth that would work in the face of such antipathy.

Chalicechick says:

The odd thing is, I've always felt that RE was the big untouchable. I mean I've been to a few churches where there was literally no budget for adult RE, but you couldn't touch the kids budget without a "won't somebody PLEASE think of the children" style flipping out.

(But I'm one of those childless people who thinks kids are overall catered to a bit much, so this is something I tend to see in the rest of life.)

I'm actually working with teenagers at my church now as I get along with them a little better, but I'm not sure why I can't be indifferent to little kids of the whiny/screamy variety as long as I pay my pledge (a big chunk of which goes to RE) and show up for their service.

CC

Shawn says:

CC writes, "I know that Christians used to be the dominant group within UUism. I know they are still the dominant group in America. Probably making ourselves a watered-down UCC would get us a whole lot of new faces, which might make us a greater force for good within the world. But I still hate the idea."

If that is indeed what we are working toward then I would not be a big fan either.

If one thinks about it, UCC congregations are full of parishioners who hold vastly different theologies and religious concepts from one another. They do share a focused sacramental and liturgical exercise that they find meaningful (some do not), but these specific things are uniquely Christian, as would be expected. What then would be left for Unitarian Universalist churches to incorporate, if the goal was not to become uniquely Christian? We already share the same diversity and freedom of theological and religious thought, albeit at a much broader level. All that I can see left for our incorporation is the sacramental and liturgical exercises, or the muting of our thoughts. I personally hope that is not where the larger discussion is leading. It probably would give us something to unite ourselves around, after all, that is the biggest difference between UUA and UCC Churches, if not the only one I can discern.

A watered down UCC UUA would be fundamentally Christian and would render the Association almost non-existent, save the UUCF members.

I still would suggest that we could be communally united, stronger institutionally, and authentically religious without changing a thing about our "theological diversity." Especially if this change means becoming overtly Christian in scope, or deciding whose religious thoughts need capped. I do understand UUism's heritage and deeply appreciate the Biblical faith from which it came (I grew up there and my father still preaches from within it), but I think it would be unfortunate if the Association backtracked and set up camp there.

Lioness, the two difficulties you cite regarding Clyde and Chutney's suggestions for a "UU 301" or "deep UU" program are serious pastoral issues, IMHO. If there are indeed UU churches which exhibit the sort of antipathy and hostility toward children and young people that you suggest ... something went wrong somewhere between the pulpit and the pews, or what ever it is they sat upon.

Beliefs seem to be our biggest hang up, ironically enough. Beliefs always seem to get in the way, and that seems true in conservative and liberal religion, obviously. If we could somehow live as if we actually believed that the people in our churches (I'm not even talking about the world yet!) are more important than beliefs then I think we could actually rise above all of this and be the stronger, more effective organization we were meant to be. This act alone would be more than enough to unite us.

This is so hard to do. I know I still have to struggle with it on a daily basis, given my present setting in a UUC seminary full of Evangelical Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Brethren, Pentecostals, and UCC'ers, and where the Eucharist is served in Chapel, which I do not take.

Oversoul says:

“Otherwise, what say we follow Thumper's mother's rule and not be randomly dismissive without adding anything useful to the conversation.”

I have added useful thoughts to the conversation to no avail; what I see here on this blog, is what I’ve seen so many other times among (some) cyber UUs: the want for religion, but the absolute fear of actually committing to it. If we can’t speak of religion in religious terms, we’re doomed to be a social club, as Martin Luther King Jr. once described us.

I don’t want us to be a watered down UCC either. But it alarms me when UUs engage in the same behavior that some fundamentalist Christians do; there’s no difference between a ranting Pat Robertson who insists that Allah is not God (in spite of Allah simply being the Arabic word for God, used by Arab Muslims, Christians and Jews alike) and a UU who insists that terms like salvation and church have only explicitly Christian meanings. The Tanakh is filled with references to salvation, long before Jesus was born. I expect UUs to have a broader knowledge of religion and to know better than this. How in the world can we engage our theological diversity if we’re going to flip out about basic religious language?

Clyde Grubbs says:

There is no movement in the UUA to become "a watered-down UUC." Our conversation about developing "a language of reverence" stemmed from article by David Bumbaugh which advocated a Humanist Language of Reverence.

Bill Sinkford gave a sermon citing Bumbaugh's paper, mentioning that the principles and purposes are coached in secular values rhetoric, and do have the symbolic or metaphoric power of religious language, and citing his own spiritual journey from adolescent Atheist, through secularism, towards reawakened religious interest, to a personal crisis where he (re) discovered prayer and learned to speak (with out definition) of God. The point of the sermon was to suggest that we could deepen our discourse with religious language.

In other sermons Bill could as easily use the metaphor of taking refuge in the Sangra as he could use the metaphor of call, when speaking of our communal vocation. His point is expanding our toleration of the use of metaphor and symbol in personal communication, and when the congregation agrees in communal communication. (We can be censorous, many of us have preached in a fellowship and had someone at coffee hour tell us "we can't use that word and be a good UU!

For many of our larger churches, and most of our congregations in the Northeast, and South, the language of reverence is old hat. But we do have some congregations for whom this idea is news, and for them it is scary.

(In my experience those who do not tolerate the use of God, prayer, Buddha, Goddess, Sacred Earth, Coyote, Good News,) language do leave when the majority asserts their right to use language without censorship, the congregation goes from being up tight humanists, to being praying and Wisdom tradition informed humanists (and we call that spirituality.))

Therefore, they are scared becauses while they want to welcome theological diversity, they fear the righteous minority who would save us from superstition and poetry.

There is no conspiracy to change us from a US movement that listened to the enlightenment, to the transcendentalists, to the world religionists, that came to understand the earth based spiritualities, and now finds itself in a plurality of religious perspectives.

What the Commission on Appraisal is advocating is that we need to articulate what we have in common, and we need to be a safe place for our multiple theological orientations. They argue we do have things in common, (history, values, orientation to the world, method or process,) but we have not articulated what we have in common.

Clyde Grubbs says:

woops forgot the "not"

Bill Sinkford gave a sermon citing Bumbaugh's paper, mentioning that the principles and purposes are coached in secular values rhetoric, and do not have the symbolic or metaphoric power of religious language,

Leo Nagorski says:

Some have suggested that the tensions in our movement over religious, theological, spiritual issues may be due to many of us being shallow. I'm not so sure. I think if we really were shallow, these issues would be much less thorny than they are. If we really were shallow, we really wouldn't care what words were said from the pulpit, at GA, or in our hymns.
I think the tensions arise because so many of us are rather "deeply" concerned with our own particular religious commitments as well as that of the denomination as a whole. This does not, of course, excuse anyone for being insulting, patronizing or marginalizing of anyone else; newcomers or long-time members. But, I think many of us left our former affiliations (if we had any) because we felt that we could not, in good conscience, subscribe to what was being proclaimed in our former religion any longer. It is only natural then, that we are going to carry that concept of integrity with us into any new organization we join. That is why it may make some of us nervous when we hear there is talk of inserting "religious language" (by who's definition ?) into our UU Principles, or feel the denomination moving in directions which seem to marginalize or exclude us.
It somewhat surprises me when I hear some in the denomination's bewilderment that different groups of us may object to different vocabularies being used. Many of the bewildered are able to understand the need for a "gender-neutral" and inclusive hymnal. Many of the bewildered have no problem objecting when they think some on the Religious Right are attempting to impose one religious viewpoint on the rest of us. The concerns of various "sub-groups" in our midst is really no different than either of those issues. Everyone wants to be able to espouse their beliefs and participate fully in our religious services without feeling we must compromise our integrity.
Having said that, I must also state that, IMO, many of us in the denomination could do with "turning down the volume a notch" in our reactions to views and presentations that are different. We can disagree without being disagreeable (as this website elegantly illustrates).

Lioness says:

One of the blogs I visit had a newcomer's impression of the UU up today. Scroll down to "Kum-ba-yah"

Quote:

The worship service itself didn't do much for me. I was searching for the right adjective afterwards, and Jeff supplied "Kum-Ba-Yah." Ah, yes, that was it. Everybody sang. Then they sang again. And again. Then a man came onstage and taught us a little tai chi. The lead ... pastor? minister? talked a little bit about Taoism and a lot about writer's block. Then everybody sang again.

"Next week I understand that they're going to talk about Islam and sing "Peace Train."

"There's really no worship to it. It's really a big room where people come together every week to sing and talk about something interesting, that has to do with faith or spirit or life. It doesn't do anything for me spiritually."

Ouch.

Shawn says:

Clyde, you wrote, "(In my experience those who do not tolerate the use of God, prayer, Buddha, Goddess, Sacred Earth, Coyote, Good News,) language do leave when the majority asserts their right to use language without censorship, the congregation goes from being up tight humanists, to being praying and Wisdom tradition informed humanists (and we call that spirituality.))"

I agree. I am a religious humanist who probably uses "religious language" more than most, and at least enough to prohibit me from a comfortable existence in the secular humanist ranks. I also agree with the ideal to that which you are pointing toward institutionally (i.e., a unified spirituality and a sustained plurality of religious perspectives).

This particular discussion, however, seems to be bending ever so slightly toward independently voiced desires to chose only one of the religious words you listed in the quote above (God, prayer, Buddha, Goddess, Sacred Earth, Coyote, Good News, etc.), or, at the very least, least monitor the alternatives. This is my personal opinion, and I do hope to be corrected. This could just be a by-product of the UU Blogosphere which seems to be leaning liberal Christian (I could be wrong, but it's a hunch). This is also where I think the "watered down UUC" phrase emanates from. No one here ever used or implied the word "Conspiracy."

I think Leo touched on that very point when he wrote: "That is why it may make some of us nervous when we hear there is talk of inserting "religious language" (by who's definition ?) into our UU Principles, or feel the denomination moving in directions which seem to marginalize or exclude us."

It's the "by who's definition" that concerns me personally. I agree with the COA's assessment regarding "Boundaries," but not if those boundaries exclude anyone, and I do mean anyone. I don't think that's is what the COA had in mind.

I personally believe we need to struggle through this awkwardness and find unity in the plurality of our religious perspectives, not assimilate ourselves into our heritage which was only pointed at suggestively by the COA. So, a language of reverence, or religious language, would be a very good thing if we extracted it anew from our present position within our own time and circumstance rather then reaching back to yesterday and choosing a specific and historically segregated brand which is bound to scare and alienate more than a few among us.

I seem to recall the COA report challenging us to build a Unitarian Universalism that is holistic and characterized by that which attracts our members to Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Earth Based Religions, Humanism, etc. The suggestion was that our members seek out other religious expressions because ours does not offer them one of its own. So, why would we go back to the pool to find our language of reverence? We surely could find unity and preserve plurality in the bunch of us coming together to create such a thing, couldn't we? I imagine it would be hard, but I think it could be done.

That's enough from me for a bit (I had off this morning, so I had a tad bit of extra time).

Clyde Grubbs says:

Chutney is right,
the new UU, middle UU, and deep UU schema was intended for religious education program planning, and not as a competitor to Fowler. And it was never intended to imply that newer UUs were "shallow" but the schema was withdrawn because of reactions such as Leo Nagorsk had to the language. But with all due respect to Leo's objection I do assert that we have a religious tradition and it does take some years and some effort to deepen within it. A Christian, a Buddhist, a Pagan, an Existentialist, etc., may be deep within their own practice and join our movement and find a welcome home, but they are a new UU relative to our five hundred year old tradition, and relative to the discourse that informs our deliberations.

I note that the Commission on Appraisal uses some of the ideas of this old schema to explain the crisis many of our youth/young adults experience. They have developed a deeper faith, than what they find in the least common denominator setting of Sunday morning. And we do have a high turnover of folks who have been with us for about 8 years. We don't do well in providing support for folks who have gone beyond chalice
jewelry, and 7 principle credos. To sustain a deep UU faith requires more than a covenant theology that sounds a lot like Locke's contract theory.

The schema of new UU, middle UU and deep UU wasn't faith development psychology, but perhaps a spiritual director might nevertheless find it useful, my thesis remains that growing as a UU consists of surviving disillusionment with the illusions of the previous stage of ideas about what UU is all about, and sticking around for a new and deeper ideas to develop in the soul.

BTW. Scott Alexander (a religious humanist of the poetic and mythic inclination) has argued that all religion is about salvation. The word and idea was used in the Roman Empire (a religiously plural economy of violence) to mean health, wholeness, healing, and since spirituality and religion were the road to heatlth, wholeness and healing, the question was asked what does this religion offer toward salvation.

Jews had concepts that could be translated to give an answer, and the early Christians came up with several answers as well. We are not reinterpreting a term, we are restoring its original meaning. Buddhism in Rome was asked what is your salvation, and the Buddhist answered "the four noble truths."

BTW 2. There is no active proposal to change the Principles and Purposes, it is idle to debate rumors. And the language of reverence conversation is more about permission giving, permitting pagans, Buddhists, Jewish oriented UUs, Mythic poetic humanists, Christians to speak the language that expresses their ideas, the conversation is confessing that least common denominator discourse didn't work for our communication, that I can't say what I believe in secular language, and neither can Leo.

Ethan Dickey says:

Phew, trying as I may to catch up. Pardon me if this response is a bit dated, but it's written for all that I read yesterday. I'm gonna take a break to respond now so I don't forget everything I wanna say ;)

First let me say that I find it distressing when certain belief systems are condescended within UU, whether Christian (I've experienced a lot of this, and sadly participated in some of it) or skeptic (I really didn't know this was such a big problem). I want to believe we're better than that.

Now, something Clyde alluded to much earlier was something I think is missing from the thoughts in this conversation: UUism is congregationally based. When a congregation joins the UUA it is the organization, not the individuals that are agreeing to the 7 Principles.

Personally, I think the Principles are just fine as they are. We don't really need to revise them, and there are much more pressing issues at hand (such issues as Lioness has mentioned). The only problem I see where the Principles are concerned is a lack of substance. As someone said, "We attract religious liberals, but we don't teach people how the practice the method of religious liberalism. We used to say we were on a quest for truth; now, we often relativize the statement by saying we search for "our truths." We rarely in congregations or as an association endeavor to explore how we know what we know is true, or just what constitutes the 'responsible search for truth'"

I must agree. I think what should be done is to start a great conversation about the principles, and what exactly they mean to each person. I took a class on Judaism last year, and what impressed me was the Talmud. The Talmud offers numerous scholarly interpretations of Biblical passages without trying to build an orthodox doctrine. I think one of the greatest flaws of western religions is that it dictates a dogma about EVERYTHING and allows little if any deviance to fit into a certain label. I do not want to see UUism make the same mistake.

In this way, UUism could be much more nebulous, yet still have much substance to offer. The Principles are not a strict creed, rather more like paramaters, and would offer a great starting point to illustrate the diversity of belief systems and philosophies within UU.

On to other issues:

Lioness and Jeff: Yes! thank you! You raise the very issue which I am currently experiencing. There is very little, if any continuity for UU youth after high school. The congregation in the city I currently live in supposedly has a young adult program, but despite numerous attempts I've been unable to get any information about it. This congregation is also quite old, I'd guess more than 2/3 over 55. The congregation I went to in high school was mostly middle-aged, but with significant numbers of children, seniors and youth. However, even there we had trouble keeping a young adult (18-30 y/o) group together. It wasnt until last year that they got more than 5 people coming every week. Another problem we had was that many of the older members really wanted nothing to do with the youth. I'm not sure why this was, but someone came up with the idea of trying to make the youth more visible to the older members, so we're not like some faceless minority that only comes out of the classrooms to do fundraising.

Clyde said, "I think some of turnover, and loss of our youth can be attributed to our lack of nurturance of 'going deeper.' I really couldn't have said more succinctly. I think it's a battle on two fronts: first, as Clyde says, there really isn't a unified UU message. (As I tried to explain earlier, I think we can have a unified message without creating a hedgemony). Second, as Lioness mentioned, there aren't as much activities for youth as in other religious organizations. A lot of this (I can tell you from experience) is because of organizational ineptitude. I'd like to think that the DRE's actions from the anecdote she mentioned wasn't consciously done. The other reason, as I mentioned, is the disconnect between youth and older memebers. Both of these major issues (lack of going deeper and social activity) ultimately come from the fact that there is less focus on the importance of youth.

Paul paraphrased something from the CoA report, "...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."

But I really have to disagree with this. First, the sense of community that can be found in a UU congregation can be satisfying without any significant internal beliefs. Second, from my experience doing repetitive manual tasks, I know that menial work can actually lead to a lot of speculation because the mind really has nothing else to do.

Chalicechick: I understand your concern re: having sermons on political topics in order to avoid divisive issues, but to many UUs social justice is a spritual issue.

Just a Unitarian: Why can't classical Unitarianism and Universalism flourish alongside other traditions within UUism?

1. Is "it works for Christian mega-churches, so it will probably work for UUs" valid thinking? I can't fathom that it is, but people keep saying things like that.
Of course it would be rash to assume just because successful churches do something that we should too. However, it is worth taking a look to see if there are some elements, not just in Christian churches or even just religious organizations, that it would benefit us to emulate.

"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."
I forgot to write down who said that, but I agree. In youth groups we draw up covanants on how we will treat one another. After becoming fed up with congregation in-fighting, a woman at our church started a covananting procress for the whole church. Yet, even then I think it lacked one of the key elements that youth group covenants have: I don't know where the list is! This pact should be displayed in a promeniant place as a reminder of the promises the memebers of the congregation made.

Mamalynx says:

Hi all. I write the blog that Lioness linked to above.

I want to let y'all know that this is the second UU church I've attended. I like the first much better, but it's an hour's drive away and that's too far for us to go right now.

The first church managed very nicely to build a service that felt reverent and meaningful. It still didn't do anything for me spiritually, but that's okay. It provided repeated rituals that were meaningful to the congregation, a sense of reverence, thoughtful messages, challenges to think. And everything always came back to that church's affirmation/statement of beliefs. It seemed to me that the church did a very nice job of presenting material that would be meaningful to theists, athiests, and what have you. They seemed to work not from a principle of being non-offensive to all, but rather to find what could be meaningful to all and focus on that.

I am concerned about the church closer to me. ALL I saw was seeking. A church needs meaningful rituals and a center. If all you do is seek and explore, what do you do once you're finished with your personal seeking? Yes, continued exploring of other faiths can always serve to deepen your own personal faith, but at some point if your church does not provide you some central core you can relate to, you'll find little point in continuing to be there.

I'd also like to say that at both these churches my children were welcomed eagerly, and both seem to have exciting RE programs with good, competent leaders.

Ethan Dickey says:

We've really already got some religious language unique to us. I should think the term Spirit of Life would be acceptable to any belief system. Even skeptics; when you take a look at the root, what is it other than a symbolic "breath" of life?

I would imagine we can all agree there is a mystery, whether you interpret it as God, Nature or Science.

I am a panentheist, yet I find the term "God" irksome. Also the term "faith" when applied to UUism. I once was agnostic, and though now I believe in something, it was not by faith that I arrived at this belief.

John says:

Thank you all for the great discussion. I have been following many of your blogs over the last few months. As you do not know me, a quick bit of history.

I am baby boomer getting older feeling the need for spirituality in my life. About twelve years I was having trouble dealing with a recent divorce after being married for twenty years. I had moved back to my hometown and a very good friend suggested attending a divorce support program at her church.

Church has not been part of my life expect for some Christmas, Easter and of course getting married. My friend’s church is Willow Creek Community Church. The divorce program was well done and was very helpful. Attending services with 5,000 people was interesting to say the least. Those folks seem to do everything with gusto, but in the end the intense pressure to accept Jesus became to much for me to continue at Willow Creek.

Now fast forward to last November and the re-election of President Bush. I became politically active first on the Dean Campaign and then Kerry’s along with local and state races. However, my thoughts kept turning to spiritual needs and my Significant Other suggest a local UU society.

I have been attending since that time and joined two months ago. The congregation is on the large side and I was a stealth attendee at services without attracting much attention. After services there is the usual coffee and fellowship which as an introvert meant I really did not talk to many people nor was approached.

Earlier this year I attended the class for possible new members. We talked about our spiritual or religious backgrounds (a wide range), a bit of UU history, the seven principles and opportunities to be involved at the church. Part of the history was how influence in UU changes over time from the Christians to now the Humanists. This was presented as part of the natural ebb and flow.

As with many organizations breaking through and meeting people can be difficult. One of the associated pastors started a UU Christian group. I elected to become part of the group with my bit of Christian background. It was interesting to learn how small a group Christian UU’s is in the church. Many attending are so pleased to be part of a Christian small group.

The Senior Pastor provides wonderful sermons mostly dealing with the political events of the day centered on the Bush administration and its failures. From a political standpoint I could not agree more. From a spiritual standpoint something feels missing.

A few weeks ago I was in the library and a young women, a vistor from here nametag, was loudly proclaiming while she agreed with the political sentiment of the sermon, that is not the reason she came to church. I realized I was agreeing with her.

I love the people, enjoy the services and basically feel comfortable. However I find myself hoping our small Christian group goes further in learning, Bible study and in that type of direction. The larger congregation often feels like a large social club.

I’m sorry this is so long. I certainly felt the Willow Creek brand of spirituality, Christianity was not for me. But, they were welcoming and made people feel at home as individuals even with 20,000 plus attending. They knew what they were about and did it well. WC provides community which is why I believe mega-churches are so successful.

We are so busy in our work, families, and other activities people lose community. We change jobs and many move so often we crave being with like minded others. Hopefully I can find that at my UU church, find community, find spirituality, learn and contribute.

The conversation here is worthwhile and some central, spiritual theme for UU’s is important, but so difficult with the diverse beliefs (or non-beliefs) involved.

Thanks for your efforts and listening.

John

Jeff Wilson says:

Wow, this is one lively conversation. In re-reading Matthew's opening comments, I see just how far we have drifted from his original question (not that this is a bad thing, of course). I was also struck by his comments on anti-Humanism, a feeling we've subsequently discussed in the comments. I wanted to talk more about the apparent prevalence of this at our seminaries, but I don't want to push this already long thread in yet another different direction. So, I've just added a post to my blog and invite comment there instead, if you wish.

Returning to the thread at hand: I don't think there is a big discrepancy between CC's views and those of Ethan and others. On the one hand, children do receive a lot of attention at the UU churches I'm familiar with, at least in terms of formal RE. On the other hand, young adults, especially those of college age, receive pathetic support. I don't think the old chestnut about us losing 90% of our children is correct; it seems to me rather that we lose 90% of our young adults.

Some of it probably relates to two different phenomena already identified here.

1) young adult UUs don't fit in well with either their Sunday School RE or the regular adult programming of our churches, which heavily favors older families, not younger singles and childless couples. Here is one area where we can look at all those successful evangelical churches we've fretted about and see them doing a significantly better job at ministering to a critical population. More attention, way more, paid to younger UUs would reap significant short- and long-term benefits for the denomination, in my opinion. I am not hopeful that this will come about.

2) Young adult UUs who leave or at least attend very infrequently are probably reacting to exactly the sort of crises and shallowness we've discused here. These are people who've been through UUism already and know its strengths and weaknesses, and at a stage of their lives where they're trying out options for themselves, many apparently discover greater depth and maturity in non-UU religion. I know in my own case, it was in college that I both received NO support as a young UU and that I discovered the depth of Buddhism, which now commands the lion's share of my attention and resources directed toward religion. One of the crucial things that Buddhism offered me and UUism did not was specific, clearly-defined, multiple tools for personal religious growth. I'm talking about finely honed meditation techniques, symbolic ritual practices, profound scriptures for study, closely reasoned moral arguments, and other practices. In UUism we're free to do these things, but we do them by appropriating from other religions (so why not just go over to the other side altogether). There are no uniquely UU meditation techniques that I'm aware of, just as an example. That's partly why I keep repeating this question of "how are we going to deepen ourselves? What are the specific programs being proposed?" Because I'm not sure whether we have the tools we need at our disposal.

And let me say one more time, I am asking real questions here. I have in no way made up my mind about whether we can deepen ourselves, how we might do so, or even that a concerted effort is feasible or necessary. I'm looking for opinions from others to help me sort out my thinking on this issue.

And by the way, a hearty welcome to John. Please don't let the genetic UU predisposition to find fault with our denomination turn you off. I hope you'll find more community and depth the longer you stay at the UU church you've been attending. And I'm glad that you've found a UU Christian group that's showed you another way to be a Christian, one hopefully more fulfulling for you.

Leo Nagorski says:

Re: Language. I may have given some people, perhaps you, Clyde, the misperception that I was offended by the use of the word, "shallow". I wasn't. I merely tried to use it to "piggy-back" one of my ideas on it.But, rereading some of the other comments posted, I wonder if some aren't actually dividing people between "shallow" and "deep". I echo Chalicechick's concerns about some of Oversoul's dismissive comments. I also am concerned that some in the denomination have a view of people who don't like or wish to use particular religious languages as in need of some sort of "recovery". Mightn't they just have made a rational decision about the matter ? Granted, it may be one some of us can't fathom, but that's neither here nor there. I'm not sure "pop psychoanalysis" of people we may disagree with is going to be fruitful. I also had a bit of trouble with Clyde's statement,"...I can't say what I believe in secular language, and neither can Leo." I probably would have been more comfortable had his period been put after "secular language" instead of "Leo".
But, I think all these comments underline the basic problem. As UUs we can be intensely individualistic, even "nitpicky" (of course, nitpicking is in the eye of the beholder). The question is how to address this. Some feel this may result in watering down "their" religious terms. Others fear this will mean imposing religious terms which actually would PREVENT them from experiencing anything religious or spiritual.
One of my concerns is that, when all is said and done, we may end up at a point of "irreconcilable differences".
On a more positive note, I wholly endorse Clyde's idea of members becoming more knowledgeable about our history. When I joined the movement, I immersed myself in our history. But, then I'm a history major who has always loved history.

John says:

Leo:

"When I joined the movement, I immersed myself in our history."

Do you have some good reading suggestions on UU history?

Thanks,

John

Oversoul says:

Faith and belief are logically interlinked; faith is acceptance of something in the absence of absolute proof, and a belief is an idea which is unproven.

“I echo Chalicechick's concerns about some of Oversoul's dismissive comments.”

Did you read my follow up?

Patrick McLaughlin says:

Ok, I sat on my hands for a while, so...

CC wrote:
I'm actually working with teenagers at my church now as I get along with them a little better, but I'm not sure why I can't be indifferent to little kids of the whiny/screamy variety as long as I pay my pledge (a big chunk of which goes to RE) and show up for their service.

WIthout intending to be rude... I think that part of your answer is embedded in what you've written. You get along better with the teens now that you've engaged them and are dealing with them... and the younger kids, well....

I mean no disrespect. It's a common story, and one I can put myself into too. I'm not saying you SHOULD. I'm just saying that it's hard to value and appreciate what you don't connect with.

Children's R.E. gets a chunk of money because if it doesn't... you'll find congregations without any families. Because the chance to inoculate people against narrow, mono-religious, fundamentalist views comes early--and even if those kids are "lost" to UUism, as so many are... they retain something of it.

Ethan wrote:
Paul paraphrased something from the CoA report, "...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."

But I really have to disagree with this. First, the sense of community that can be found in a UU congregation can be satisfying without any significant internal beliefs. Second, from my experience doing repetitive manual tasks, I know that menial work can actually lead to a lot of speculation because the mind really has nothing else to do.

I'm afraid my reading of the COA got interrupted... but I'd disagree too. There's a grotesque misconception that the lower classes lack time and interest in such things. How arrogant! And how historically inaccurate! Read up on the history of labor in the US, and you'll be stunned to find that a feature of 19th century labor halls was a library, stocked with literature and philosophy. I'm not convinced that my own upper-middle class background and liberal college education has left me any better prepared to wrestle with the big issues than my grandfather was, self-educated in his own time... and he never even completed high school.

I've seen people who seemed like they could well be perfectly good UUs recoil because of their perception that one had to be well -- and formally -- educated. I experienced an interesting touch of that when someone insisted on my educational background for a bio in the newsletter, since everyone else running for the board had indicated theirs. I wish I'd thought to insist that it not be included. I will next year when I stand for re-election as president.

Ethan addressed Just a Unitarian: Why can't classical Unitarianism and Universalism flourish alongside other traditions within UUism?

In my experience, they do. At least within my congregation. I know several people who carefully identify themselves as Universalist UUs, and look out for mistakenly falling into the habit of refering to ourselves as Unitarians (collectively)... in the same way that Jewish members look out for other things.

My own take is that despite Universalist fears, Universalism (broadly interpreted) has become the stronger theme in UUism. People at large in our... faith... seem to express something closer to Universalism--that the truth is larger, shared, not exclusive and that wisdom is found in all times and places.

It's fascinating to me to read some of the conflicts... because I don't really see them as being deep within my own congregation.

Our recent Search delivered us a Catholic-raised Pagan/Buddhist/Humanist minister, trained in a Christian seminary. She's been exceedingly well received, and we continue to grow; I don't think that we lost anyone completely, and only one couple left... and they still attend most Sundays when she's not preaching (no one can or will make everyone happy... and they also have other issues with more than a few members...).

My biggest concern is honestly that we're doing a marginal job of meeting the needs of our older youth and a crappy job of meeting the needs of young adults. It's fine to mutter that we don't address the needs of UUs who want to/are ready to go deeper... and I'm not denying that there's always going to be a need there. But most of a growing congregation's membership isn't going to be made up of people who've been serious UUs for more than 8 years or so.

I can't address the specifics of the example where someone came... and went away feeling emptyhanded... that there was no there there. I can only look at real examples in my own backyard. We have a couple, new members, who came first about 15 months ago... because she was a Reeve fan, and after reading his biography, wanted to explore the religion he'd been part of. Her husband and son got dragged along (her husband decribed it all, complete with rolling his eyes at being dragged to church). His background sounded pretty typical; he was raised in a seriously religious household, and... wasn't. He's like a kid in a candy store now. They became members after a lengthy wait--to be sure. He turns up... religiously. Even if she doesn't, and even if he has to hurry home to get stuff done afterwards. He's described how much of a difference UUism's made to his life, personally.

So... while we're thrashing and trying to figure out what this is, and what it ought to be... there's something there that's making a real diffence for people.

Will I leave? No. Not as long as this is identifiably UUism, with room for diverse beliefs, and support for people exploring and modifying their views. I've done plenty of exploring of other religions, and there are precious few that I could even grudgingly participate in.

I think that we'll do better if we stop poking at the lack of creed--there hasn't been one in a long time, and that's a "selling point". Rather, working on our covenants--what we are together, and what we do together--seems to me to be the place we need to focus. That's the heard of what we do, I believe.

The discussion of a language of reverence is, I think, a worthwhile one--because of two things;

* it will serve to help people to understand us as a religion (most people understand religion as meaning creed... they need to understand how someone... they, personally... can "plug into" UUism).

* it will provide some shared terminology for UUs of various stripes to understand our own interconnections and shared values.

In that sense, the language IS religion--it will help bind us together. But that's not going to be content, but rather structure and form. The content is how we deal with each other, and with others outside our own communities.

There, I see great hope. I hear themes being articulated about interdependence and community, about doing important work together... coupled with respect for people's individually shaping the meaning of their own lives. I think that the SAI sent back to the congregations, Moral Values for a Pluralistic Society, speaks directly to the heart of what we're about.

We're wrrestling with e pluribus unum, in a religious context, rather than a political one. How do the many become one?

Many of the questions and frustrations and doubts sound remarkably consistent with those who look at the US and try to figure out what it is that makes Americans American. How are Americans--wildly diverse, politically at odds... living in remarkably different ways--"one"?

That's part of the mystery we revolve around.

What makes a UU a UU? (What makes an American an American?) The answer isn't easy to articulate. But as my European friends affirm, it's easy to spot one.

Chalicechick says:

O-soul, I read your followup and am unimpressed. You tone implies you see the answer as really obvious. Frankly, I've used religious language as most people define it, I've redefined it, played around with it, looked at different definitions of it, tried to imagine new perspectives on it and am unimpressed that it will have the effect that some people here say it will. After all, lots of us come from congregations where it was used all the time. If it was so great, we'd be there.

I rarely if ever take the name of the Lord in vain not because I fear it's a sin but because to do so is pretty meaningless to me. To take my favorite analogy, it's like saying "Oh my gravity!"

I am confused that everyone thinks changing the terminology will be really significant. Orwell's (so far disproven since the Shapir-Worf hypothosis was actually tested) assumptions about language's power aside, just because the government now calls it the "Department of Defense" rather than the "Department of War," is anybody really fooled?

IMHO, it has just made the word "Defense" scarier.

It's not that I haven't considered what you think is so obvious, it's that I don't think it will work, and I think it will do a lot of damage in the process of not working.

I'm a UU now because UUism works for me as is. Freedom to define my own path works for me. Refining belief through reason works for me. Just as I basically prefer mystery novels, but get useful things out of all sorts of different books, I basically prefer my own brand of non-theism, but get valuable things out of all kinds of different theological directions. I don't have to be on my knees to be worshipping that which is greater than me and my interest in any being who WANTS to be worshipped in the conventional sense of the word is minimal.

Ethan, Social Justice can be a great issue. But it should not be allowed to be the dominant issue and often it is. And we really shouldn't use it as our primary means of selling UUism. And we often do.

Patrick, to be honest it doesn't bother me that I don't get along with small children. My point was that I don't view it as a moral failing on my part and I feel that every congregation I've ever been a part of has done a ton for its kids. So I don't see this as a particularly useful thing to flog ourselves over.

As someone who joined UUism at the age of 20, I was the only one of my friends who went to church at all. As I've gotten older, I've had a few friends who went to church and talked up UUism to almost everyone, but on the whole, no. Maybe fundie kids do stick with their churches through their twenties, although I know several religious conservatives my age who sleep in on Sundays. I stuck it out with the Presbyterians until I was 17 and was the lone high school kid going to my fairly large church. I don't know that age-based marketing is really the point.

Maybe the early twenties is just a time when people aren't looking for religion. As far as I can tell, twentysomethings are in two loose cultures:

1. Those who, like college students, spend lots of time in bars and claim they can't afford to go out to dinner anyplace where dinner will cost more than ten bucks.

2. Those who are more like junior 30 somethings. They have basically stable jobs and relationships and are thinking about weddings, kids, buying houses, etc.

I submit that there isn't a lot of point in marketing ourselves to the first group and the second group is best served by having lots of good adult RE, childcare and social groups that treat them like everyone else, and most importantly, like people who are depended on rather than people who are catered to.

CC

Oversoul says:

CC

You’ve completely missed my point; there are people here complaining about terms which they insist are solely or “too” Christian, when in fact they are used by religions other than Christianity, religions which predate Christianity significantly. Common sense says that these ideas, however differently they may be explored by a particular tradition, are part of the larger vocabulary of human religion.

We are a democracy, as is Canada; we use a very different system than they do, but surely you’d think it stupid to refuse to call their system a democracy for fear of people thinking they have a President and a Congress?

You yourself used the terms “minister” and “worship” without, one can assume, exploding.

Lioness says:

CC, I and many of my college friends were desperately looking for religion in college, both the ones in the first group and the ones in the second group. We had grown up in a religious monoculture whose answers didn't suit us, and we were searching hard for other answers that would fit us better. We would have been pathetically eager to fit into any place that would respect us, but we needed respect for the place we had reached in our lives and the journey that had brought us there.

chutney says:

1. Those who, like college students, spend lots of time in bars and claim they can't afford to go out to dinner anyplace where dinner will cost more than ten bucks.

2. Those who are more like junior 30 somethings. They have basically stable jobs and relationships and are thinking about weddings, kids, buying houses, etc.

Here in Atlanta we started a group for 20/30s almost two years ago. We now have an email list of 135. I wouldn't venture to say which group we have more of, but it's close enough that it may as well be a draw.

It can be done.

(Our campus outreach, however, is struggling.)

chutney says:

Jeff,

Earlier you asked about the content of the membership class/UU101. My hunch is that most of these courses are little more than verbal brochures. There's little learning going on. Most adults don't learn well from a lecture. (I enjoy a good lecture myself, but I'm weird that way.)

A successful UU101 would, yes, get the history/overview stuff covered. But more importantly, it would build new friendships among participants, which would mean something of an interactive, story-sharing (by the participants, I mean), approach. More like a youth group workshop perhaps than BookTV on C-SPAN. These new relationships would have a UU context, would help the new folks feel more at home, and because of how they were formed, would make it okay to speak vulnerably about what UUism means to you personally. Over time, that could transform a community.

Chalicechick says:

As far as I'm concerned, people can use religious language if they want to.

My concern is that people not be pressured into using religious language. My other concern is people not be pressured into using Christian language under the theory that any other sort is not properly reverent. (It's nice to know that terms that other religions share with Christianity count as reverent. Tell me, do any terms from non-Christian religions that Christians don't use count? If so, why don't we hear them in this discussion?)

As much as you make fun of me for my choice of words, I really don't care about yours, excepting the fact that you're so very snotty when someone wants to talk in a way different from the way you want them to.

I've never said that people can't use religious language, I've just said that I don't intend plead for your approval by doing so and I don't really see any other motive. I use what I think of as the most appropriate word for getting across what I'm trying to say.

Oh, and I still think the best way to get young people is to treat them like regular adults. That worked best for me. But I may be unusual...

CC

contribUUtor says:

In addition to the thoughtful comments posted here, interested folks might want to read the following opinions. In particular the 2 links under "Criticism of UU".
http://www.uuism.net/uuwiki/index.php/Online_Information_Resources

For my part it is hard to imagine not feeling comfortable saying I am a UU, but I can very easily imagine not finding a UU congregation to call home.

Ethan Dickey says:

I must agree with Chutney. I've met numerous UU's whose spiritual journeys really started in their college years. Anyway, I'm not even concerned with bringing in people of this age group so much as providing for those of that age that already have a commitment to UUism.

Matthew Gatheringwater says:

100 comments! That really must be something of milestone in the UU blogosphere and I have enjoyed reading every one. Thank you all so much for sharing your perspectives and don't please stop on my account. I feel like I have learned a lot already.

Oversoul says:

CC:

“Tell me, do any terms from non-Christian religions that Christians don't use count? If so, why don't we hear them in this discussion?”

Give me some examples…I’ve been talking about largely universal terms, not trying to cherry pick from one tradition or another.

I’m not opposed to understanding, discussing, or using religious ideas from whatever tradition.

“As much as you make fun of me for my choice of words, I really don't care about yours, excepting the fact that you're so very snotty when someone wants to talk in a way different from the way you want them to.”

I don’t make fun of you for your choice of words; if you read carefully you’ll see that what I’m lamenting is very thing you accuse me of. Nancy said that some terms shouldn’t be used because they are too Christian; others echoed her sentiment; I pointed out that this was incorrect by providing examples of other religions which use those terms, and that understanding them in a strictly Christian sense was not necessary or reasonable.

It’s exactly the same argument I have with conservatives who insist that the term marriage can only mean a union of man and a woman, despite historical and cultural realities that say otherwise.

Leo Nagorski says:

Sorry for the delay in response, John. But, I wanted to check my library at home to make sure of titles & authors. Here goes:
"The Unitarians & Universalists" - David Robinson
"Epic of Unitarianism" - David B. Parke
"History of Unitarianism" vols. 1&2 - Earl Morse Wilbur
"American Universalism" - George Hunston Williams
"A Stream of Light" - Conrad Wright
"Unitarian Universalism" - David E. Bumbaugh
"The Larger Faith" - Charles A. Howe
"For Faith and Freedom" - Charles A. Howe
"Francis David" - Bela Varga
"Hosea Ballou" - Ernest Cassara
"Channing" - Jack Mendelsohn
"Theodore Parker" - Henry Steele Commager
"Norbert Fabian Capek" - Richard Henry
"These Live Tomorrow" - Clinton Lee Scott
"Men of Liberty" - Stephen Hole Fritchman (children's)
What is good about many of these is that they have annotated bibliographies.
The biographies can give you something of the flavor of our movement during the lifetimes of the subjects.

Leo Nagorski says:

I am sure that Oversoul may be feeling beseiged about now. As I feel partly responsible, I apologize. But, I have to explain as well (if that isn't true UU, I don't know what is). I think some of us reacted to Oversoul's comments because we perceived them as implying that, A) either one accepted the premise that religious language does not have to be restricted to one specific definition and therefore would join the bandwagon for religious language or one was seen as an unenlightened philistine of some sort,or, B) one accepted the idea that, yes, religious terms can have many different meanings but still reject the idea that using religious language was a good idea. In which case, one would again be viewed as an unenlightened philistine. Why isn't it acceptable that someone can hear all the arguments for incorporating religious terms into services, UU Principles, etc. and yet still not be convinced ? It seems to me quite possible that someone could agree with everything the "pro-reverence" side says about the continuing "evolution of words" and still reject the argument.

Oversoul says:

This is my last comment on the subject, because it's wearing me out.

All I said, all I meant, was that certain religious terms which were brought up by others here are not explicitely or soley Christian, and to object to Sinkford or others using them on the grounds that they are Christian, is irrational.

Chalicechick says:

(((You yourself used the terms “minister” and “worship” without, one can assume, exploding.)))

I assume as that was your last comment, I'm not going to get an answer, but I would like to know what that is if not making fun of my choice or words.

I do not object to Sinkford or anybody else using them. I object to him telling me to use them and I object to you telling me I must just want a social club if I don't.

CC

John says:

Leo, thank you for taking the time and effort to put together a book list. I so appreciate it.

Thanks,

John

Oversoul says:

"I assume as that was your last comment, I'm not going to get an answer, but I would like to know what that is if not making fun of my choice or words."

I wasn't making fun of you at all, I was pointing out that you use words that also could be included in the group of the verboten, and you do so with the very understanding of their broader-than-just-Christianity application that I'm trying to explain. In other words, you already do what I'm asking others to do.

Moreover, I didn't say you must use certain terms or the alternative is a social club, what I was trying to communicate was that if we cannot use religious terms (for fear of someone being offended) that have a broad usage across traditions, we're doomed.

Now, back to my vow of silence...

Lioness says:

Folks I'm going to be gone for the weekend, but I would certainly like to discuss more about how to deepen spirituality in the UU. I'll look forward to seeing where this conversation leads.

For a sociologist's look at the organizational differences between the Right and Left I recommend Kingdom of Children : Culture and Controversy in the Homeschooling Movement (Princeton Studies in Cultural Sociology) Mitchell Stevens was supposed to be writing a book about homeschooling, but he admits in the book he got sidetracked. Since the homeschool movement is the one place in America where you can see the Far Right and the Far Left working side-by-side he got more involved in comparing and contrasting their different methods of organizing. The comparisons were most fascinating and point to some of the very problems we have been discussing. I am convinced there are ways we can address our problems without losing our unique identity.

Take care of yourselves.

Chalicechick says:

I've never said any term is verboten. I think Christian terms can often be less effective in achieving our goals than other words, but I've never tried to ban their usage.

And I think to say that there's a real movement to do that is to set up a straw man argument. (E.g. I read sermons at PB's blog and I fail to see a bunch of comments from people who try to instruct her not to use theistic language. If I were writing an essay on the same topic, I would likely write it differently using different language, but I'm a different person who expresses her ideas differently and sees the issues through different eyes.)

When I hear the "if only we could use a 'language of reverence,' we could... (be a real religion/attract more people who are used to these terms/have a core of spirituality/make our politics more persuasive/whatever)" argument, I argue that it won't do what people say it will, but I've never said people can't use such language.

I'm not arguing with the product. I'm arguing with what I see as false advertising. I don't think using Christian terminology is effective. Heck, my dad's a Christian and his last advice for me when I went off to college was "Don't addicted to anything, don't get pregnant, don't get saved."

PB is right that I was aquainted with the term. Despite the fact that Presbyterians of my childhood ilk do not "get saved," as a member of the American culture, I have a general impression of what "getting saved" is.

But to me the crucial point is that while I am acquianted with the term "getting saved," my impression of it, like my father's, is not good. And I'd say that I am in the majority of people who have not themselves been saved in having that opinion.

In my opinion, when we use Christian language, we will almost always have to clean off negative impressions of it before we can even start building positive impressions. I do think it is easier just to say things another way.

And again, I'm unthrilled with what does seem like an "if you're not talking like a Christian, you're not speaking the language of reverence" subtext to all this.

But my central point has never been to prevent people from talking a certain way.

CC

Lioness says:

Skimmed over Loehr's piece while I was supposed to be packing. Part of his arguement seems to be that UU is not a religion because it doesn't call upon us to wrestle with some hard spiritual principle in order to learn a Higher Truth and obtain a deeper understanding. Good point. So, what hard spiritual principle should UUs wrestle with and how should we go about it?

Clyde Grubbs says:

Lioness asks whether Unitarian Universalism is a religion that has "hard spiritual principle" that we must wrestle with "in order to learn a Higher Truth and obtain a deeper understanding."

Does the United Church of Christ have such a hard spiritual principle? No it would be argued, they are not a religion, they are denomination of Christianity. But I say Christianity is pluralistic, and has more than one "hard spiritual principle" that devotees are asked to wrestle with.

With all due respect, I think that the question is problematic, and is assumes an understanding of what distinquishes the religions of the world that is somewhat academic. In reality, most the "world religions" have divergent views within them. What pray tell is the central message of Hinduism? Depends on the particular variety of Hinduism that we look at. While most religions are not as diverse as Hinduism, most have more divergence that Unitarian Universalism.

We are not in same class as Hinduism. We are more like a denomination both sociologically, and organizationally than a world religion. I think we need a central message. We can have more than one spiritual task.

Are we are religion, or are we are a religious community united on a common approach, wiith our own tradition, and that has hesitated to articulate its message. I think the former.

Lioness says:

Thank you Clyde. Of course we can have more than one spiritual task. But that still begs the question of what these tasks are.

StevenR says:

that was a very good list of history books, I would add Russell E. Miller's THE LARGER HOPE - read volume 1, volume 2 is optional.
Another in print book, is THE OTHER SIDE OF SALVATION by John B. Buescher - which is the history of the Spirtualist movment's split from the Universalist Church

Ive been reading alot of Universalist biographies and autobiography with Clinton Lee Scott's SOME THINGS REMEMBERED, being the most recent read. I have picked up E. Manford autobiography.

PeaceBang says:

I'm reading through all of this marvelous discussion and thinking how amazing it is that we've never ONCE mentioned that we care about being able to join in the inter-religious dialogue outside our own congregations. I should think that this would be an ostensibly important goal for people who consider themselves so serious about fellowship, world peace, etc.

I don't know what "language of reverence" really is, but I do know that refusing to engage with traditional religious language (as I did for many years) only kept me bitter, self-marginalized and self-righteously Other at every religious gathering I attended. My whole journey of starting to wrestle with traditional religious language (Jewish and Christian, as it was Biblical material I first grappled with) came out of my ardent desire to have a voice at the table of inter-religious dialogue. So what started out as a pretty calculating desire to have some power actually wound up giving me a working vocabulary for my own spiritual realities.

I greatly admire those practitioners of a humanist language of reverence who do it well, with poetry and beauty. It's a hard job and not for the lazy. As an avid collector of worship materials, I am convinced that they are making a major contribution not only to UUism but to the "religion that wants to be free" that Chalice Chick claimed. (Great phrase, btw.)

And yet there is the desire for religious multi-lingualism. Do we care what "the neighbors" think of us? I do.
I always tell the story of the Episcopal priest protesting outside the Planned Parenthood with the Religious Coalition For Reproductive Choice who, when I showed up with my people said to me in a very kindly way, "God Bless the Unitarians. They always show up. They can never explain why, but they always show up." I have made it my business in ministry to help my congregants find a way to explain the WHY of their religious convictions. They are encouraged to dive deep and come up with some pearls for themselves that they can wear -- and articulate-- always: not to earn the approval of any other religious person, but so that they feel truly part of the great fellowship of justice-seeking religious people in the world. So that they *belong.*

Along with William Ellery Channing, I believe that *belonging* simply must extend beyond the borders of our own little denomination. If it does not, we're definitely in the club category.

I truly believe that many UUs, who claim a global family-one-world consciousness and commitment, are definitely uncomfortable outside our tiny family compound. Refusing to grapple with Biblical language keeps us there. It's one thing to grapple with Biblical language, learn something of the classical Unitarian and Universalist treatment/understanding of it, and THEN choose to avoid it because it fails entirely to resonante with me/you/us. It's another thing entirely to stay in a place of frozen resentment, refuse to even HEAR those words, and claim that we're, in fact, living out a free faith when we're actually spiritually ossified in rage and hurt.

Whoever said that you can't mandate healing was right (Lioness?). Yes, you can model it. Moreover, you can voice it as a hope and expectation and make it an explicit ministry of the church. Part of that ministry is to treat traditional Biblical language like an arranged marriage. Living in the Western world, they're just GONNA be in the house with us. Might as well make some peace with them. Might as well kiss the bride and dance with her; she's not going away.

CC, I am guessing that the reason people don't critique my sermons on my blog is that they understand that I don't post them for the purpose of dissection: I post them in the hopes that they might minister to someone. Those who think I'm too Goddy or Christy just click right off. I appreciate that the readers of PeaceBang understand that a sermon is composed for a certain community -- one they don't know, and that I do know -- and that when I share a sermon I am ripping it out of its home and context and taking a risk in doing so.

Thanks, everyone. This is great stuff.

chutney says:

PB,

You're reminding me of what they taught us the first year I was a counselor at my favorite high school church camp. There were a bunch of us who had grown up at that camp, and some of us would be ostensibly leading folks who were only a year younger than us, under the pretense of being "the adult in the room."

The advice we got? Three simple things: model, model, model.

Chalicechick says:

If there is a situation, such as inter-religious dialogues, where thestic language is particularly useful, hey, knock thyself out. I most often hear religious language suggested as a marketing tool for attracting new members or one that will make us more of a religion, though, and I'm really skeptical about those two.

I do use religious language myself when talking to people of other faiths.

When it comes to political issues, to some degree, I'd like a religous "why" that I could state myself, but I'm aware that I mostly want it because it sounds cool and that's a pretty sucky reason. If I get into an argument about the death penalty, I feel like "The death penalty is against my religion" would be a powerful thing to say. Yet it's not really true. I'm sure the UUA is against the death penalty, but Unitarian-Universalism takes no stand on it and I wouldn't like it if they did for other political issues.

So, I say "I have a moral objection to the death penalty," which is true and has a similar if lesser impact. And I tell myself that winning an argument isn't everything.

It's one thing to grapple with Biblical language, learn something of the classical Unitarian and Universalist treatment/understanding of it, and THEN choose to avoid it because it fails entirely to resonante with me/you/us. It's another thing entirely to stay in a place of frozen resentment, refuse to even HEAR those words, and claim that we're, in fact, living out a free faith when we're actually spiritually ossified in rage and hurt.

That is beautifully put. And I agree about learning about classical Unitarianism and Universalism. Though the most anti-bible people I've run across do have bible experience. As Jeff, Chutney and other folks have discussed, this situation sucks and is hard to fix. Yes, modeling helps.

If I were in an arranged marriage with someone who liked tennis but was a terrible cook, I think I'd play tennis with them but handle the cooking myself. An arranged marriage doesn't mean one has to spend every minute together. I feel like religious language and I have more of a "Bill and Hillary" marriage where we use one another when necessary and mostly find our real satisfaction other places.

I totally didn't mean that I thought people should be critiquing your sermons in that sort of way, PB. Again, while I personally would probably use different words to express similar ideas. You'll note that I've never posted that on your blog, mostly because I don't have a problem with you preaching in religious language.

My point with stating that was just that if religious language were truly "banned" or "verboten" then I would think you would get more objections of that type.

It would seem to me that the solution, rather than telling people that they should be using more religious language and complaining that religious language is somehow not allowed, is to do just what y'all are saying up here, to model it.

I think you model it really well, PB. Other people less so, but you use religious language in a way that makes me want to quote you, although I use way less of it.

CC

Clyde Grubbs says:

Unitarian Universalism must have integrity as a religious community, or it will fail its present membership and it will fail to help new comers become self actualizing religious liberals. Chalice Chick reports "I most often hear religious language suggested as a marketing tool for attracting new members or one that will make us [seem to be] more of a religion, though, and I'm really skeptical about those two."

The marketing tool idea of building Unitarian Universalism is much too widespread, and we can think of so many examples. We would could really grow if we appeared to be more youth friendly, more welcoming of poets or physicists, more modern, more traditional, more of what ever the media is telling us is this years new thing.

People come and visit and make up their own minds, not on how we have choosen to appear, but on the quality of religious community that they find. Qualities can not be packaged into an image for the market, but if we spend more time working on all the various "qualities" (programmatic, relational, missional) we might come to embody a community that would attract folks despite appearing "so out of it."

Again on religious language — the presenting problem is a culture of censorship, which exists in many but not all of our congregations. If one hasn't witnessed in the congregation one presently attends, congratulations...but others have testified that it is real and present in the one they attend (or have dropped out of.) Yes, this can be overcome by those bold souls among us who model wise and creative use of "God talk." But I observe that is a skill that is learned by those among us whose spiritual practice includes taking interpersonal risks for sake of relational authenticity. Such a spiritual practice is an admirable challenge for all of us, and I think it should be nurtured deliberately by our ministry, but it rare. Many Unitarian Universalists crave peer approval, especially in the beginning of their spiritual search, or religious development. What I have observed in over a dozen congreations and over several decades is that many have internalized the culture of censorship and have come to self censor their 'vocabulary' for words that might offend a minority who is committed to secularism as an end in itself.

To preach to these souls that they need to rise to occasion, and say what they will, is a little like scolding a victim of abuse for being an enabler. By accepting abuse they are enabling the abuse, but they will need a new support system before they can redefine themselves, so the scold doesn't help.

Chalicechick says:

My impression is that, with people setting good examples, this problem has been getting better on its own.

Again, my ministers have always talked about God. I got crap about one lay sermon from one old lady and we turned it in to a decent discussion.

And I would think that the minister of a church is enough of a grownup to use the language they want, even if they other kids don't like it.

If the minister isn't afraid to use religious language, and we're having Elaine Pagels as our ware lecturer, I we're working this problem out. This is not, of course, to say that the minister has to and for Sinkford to directly market religious language from his position of power set off a predicatable backlash that seems to be to have been unneccessary.

In my experience, the least mature UU churches are the one that don't have ministers, don't want ministers and make theological language completely verboten. They will change more slowly then the rest. But frankly, if a new UU seeking a God-centered approach shows up there, the language is the least of their problems.

And I don't know that changing the language to cater to new UUs is really going to be that effective. I'd say we get at least as many pissed-off-no-religion-whatsoever sorts and nobody is seriously advocating catering to them.

CC
CC

Chalicechick says:

My impression is that, with people setting good examples, this problem has been getting better on its own.

Again, my ministers have always talked about God. I got crap about one lay sermon from one old lady and we turned it in to a decent discussion.

And I would think that the minister of a church is enough of a grownup to use the language they want, even if they other kids don't like it.

If the minister isn't afraid to use religious language, and we're having Elaine Pagels as our ware lecturer, I we're working this problem out. This is not, of course, to say that the minister has to and for Sinkford to directly market religious language from his position of power set off a predicatable backlash that seems to be to have been unneccessary.

This is not to say that ministers have to use religious language, but I think all but the most inexperienced know enough not to be bullied into not using it if they want to.

In my experience, the least mature UU churches are the one that don't have ministers, don't want ministers and make theological language completely verboten. They will change more slowly then the rest. But frankly, if a new UU seeking a God-centered approach shows up there, the language is the least of their problems.

And I don't know that changing the language to cater to new UUs is really going to be that effective. I'd say we get at least as many pissed-off-no-religion-whatsoever sorts and nobody is seriously advocating catering to them.

CC
CC

Leo Nagorski says:

Some posters have mentioned marketing, that is often one of my pet peeves. I sometimes get the impression from Boston that they have adopted a "Madison Ave." mentality and their primary concern is "butts in seats and coins in plates". Maybe I'm old-fashioned (or maybe this is a holdover from my Catholic upbringing) but I think religion should be about more than mass marketing. To cast this in "traditionalist" terms; when I read the Bible or the Sutras, I don't find a lot of spreadsheets or graphs of membership growth.
I've also noticed that a lot of the talk about marketing these days seems to go in one direction. While it may well be true that a lot of people in America are interested in "spirituality" (however broadly one wishes to define that term),(and we certainly should be open and welcoming to them), there are also millions of Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists, and Non-Theists out there, too. Many of them might be attracted to our movement. Yet, surprisingly (?), there doesn't seem to be much effort exerted in attracting those folks .

Rieux says:

CC wrote:
I do not object to Sinkford or anybody else using them. I object to him telling me to use them and I object to you telling me I must just want a social club if I don't.

You go, Chalicechick. You're right that the nonbelieving end of this discussion all too frequently gets straw-manned to death (e.g., in the "social club" and "verboten" strands on this thread). Major kudos for questioning that.

And then Leo's got a telling (but heavily underappreciated) point: if this whole area of UU endeavor is even-handed, where's the outreach effort toward non-UU nonbelievers? Peacebang notes her desire to "join in the inter-religious dialogue outside our own congregations," which (as CC noted) is no problem in itself--but where's the analogous outreach to the ten to twenty percent (and growing--see http://tinyurl.com/bgcwr ) of Americans who see themselves as "secular," "nonreligious," "atheist," etc.? Where's the concern for "join[ing] the non-religious [uh, "inter-skeptical"?] dialogue outside our own congregations"?

The UUA isn't more interested in appealing to/developing dialogue with members of (1) the Presbyterian church on one side of the street than they are to/with members of (2) the Atheists' and Freethinkers' Society on the other side, is it?

Perhaps more importantly, it would be a problem if the Association held that bias, right?

(My trackback isn't working, so here's some no-frills blogwhoring: my post from several days ago, responding to Matthew's OP here, is at http://www.infidelityblog.org/2005/07/prodigal-bloggers.html .)

Lioness says:

Whoa people, all this talk of recruiting is putting the cart before the horse. IIRC the UUA now has a skyrocketing first-time attendance rate BUT the newcomers are only staying 5-8 years. We don't need to work on recruitment, recruitment is taking care of itself. We need to work on retention.

Clyde Grubbs says:

Looking at the actual marketing materials of the UUA, I fail to understand how anyone can assert that these materials are pitched toward spiritual seekers, or assume any theology what so ever.
Leo's actual quote was "I've also noticed that a lot of the talk about marketing these days seems to go in one direction." In otherwords, the buzz that Leo hears seems to indicate we should go after spritual seekers. This is how the UU equivalent of urban myths get started, some one hears at Coffee Hour that the UU is marketing spiritualists, and some one objects to the whole idea of targeting spiritualists, and we gossip about that, and next thing we know we have a movement to counter the UUA effort to target spiritualism. (They even published a book..)

Read the copy. We can object to the Uncommon Denomination on a lot of grounds, but that it targets any theological orientation would be hard to exegete.

Patrick McLaughlin says:

Lioness is on point. I don't know where the "only stay 5-8 years" thing comes from, but the first part's correct.

We're not in need of marketing to get more people to come check us out. We need to figure out what it takes to "close the sale" (ick, I know). But right now, most people are coming because what they've heard about what UUism and UUs are about IS attractive to them. So what are we doing/not doing that makes people not come back and stay...?

The issue of retention beyond 5-8 years is a new one (to me). And I seriously doubt that it can be addressed in the same manner as the other issue.

But my own congregation sees at least a couple new visitors almost every Sunday. There are some Sundays when we'll see eight or more (and it's only a congregation of 165 members...). Making just one person/week decide to stay would give us a growth rate we'd be hard pressed to know what to do with (I'll take that problem...).

And here's the ugliest kicker: From what I've heard, my congregation does a significantly better than average job of greeting and making visitors feel welcome. Not superb, not brilliant... but above average. We've got a steady 4-5% a year growth. But there are, I estimate, at least 10 (and perhaps as many as 100) potential or likely UUs in our area for each current member. 4-5% won't reach them for a very long time.

Justin says:

The original question was, "What is your tipping point?"

I'm a newcomer to; only about a year... (at least officially.. unofficially… I’ve been exploring for… well… since I’ve been born). So to answer this question, I ask myself the opposite, “Why am I am a UUist?”

The answer, for me, is that I cannot find all the answers from the Bible, nor can I find all the answers in the Tipitaka, nor can I find all the answers in the Greek and Roman philosophical treaties. But I find some answers in the Bible, and I find some answers in the Buddhist scriptures, and I find some answers in the stoic writings. And my question is, “Why must I choose?” I can’t I use my cut and paste function and create my own “sacred scripture”?

And so this is why I’m a UU: I’m not forced to believe that which I cannot believe. I can find some meaning in everything.

So back to the original question: For me, the answer would be when I’m forced to have to declare myself a Christian or a Buddhist; a theist or a non-theist: when I’m forced to leave out a religion or philosophy that could perhaps give some meaning. At that point, I just might as well just join one of their societies and forget UUism.

Peace :)

Braidwood says:

Wow, that was a great post.

I very much agree with Jeff that I would be very sad if any particular group defined UUism. I like the Unitarian Church BECAUSE their is no creed. If there was a church full of people that thought the exact way I do, I would still prefer the UU church. However, sadly, I have felt less welcome lately with all the god talk. (Not people expressing how they feel about God, but people saying how it IS.) I want everyone to feel welcome. Including me! PLEASE! I would be sooo sad to lose my religious home.

I don't know what my tipping point would be... Any theology or creed, for sure. Wow, I would be sad about that.

Leo Nagorski says:

I kind of object to Clyde's remarks here. The idea that an individual's or group of individuals' comments and perceptions should be arbitrarily labeled as gossip or "urban legend" seems to me to be a rather clever way to dismiss them, without having to actually address them. I think most Humanists (and even non-Humanists) have observed Boston producing a lot of "spirituality" oriented materials (I don't think there is anything wrong with that) and a dearth of materials that would appeal to Humanists. I think a lot of the talk we hear by many of the "leaders" in our denomination seems to be geared to those in our society of a "spiritual" bent. The whole discussion of "a language of reverence" is often couched in terms of communicating, even "evangelizing" those "outside the faith" Again, I see nothing wrong with outreach to anyone. But, many Humanists feel the denomination is aiming at some "demographics" over others. You can dismiss those perceptions if you wish, but they are quite real. And, I am not at all convinced that those perceptions aren't, at least to some extent, accurate.

fausto says:

As I wrote on Friday in an aside to ChaliceChick, my general position is that you don't have to accept our legacy Judeo-Christian religious heritage literally, but if you can't get comfortable with it at least figuratively, if you can't acknowledge and even honor it as the authentic, original source of our zeal for social justice, inherent dignity of the human individual, ethics, and compassion, then you're taking something valuable away from, rather than contributing something new and valuable to, our "living tradition". Where enough of a congregation is comprised of such detractors that they begin to intimidate or belittle the preservers and contributors, that is my "tipping point".

I don't mean to suggest that outdated language and/or observances ought necessarily to be invoked exclusively or regularly -- but when they are invoked, we should be willing and able to engage in them comfortably, even fluently. It's a little like the old childhood security blanket that we don't really use any more as adults, but that still gives us a reassuring safe zone when we take it out of its box. Don't expect me to respond to every challenge in my adult life by retreating to my security blanket, but don't ask me to suppress part of my identity by taking it away from me, either.

Clyde Grubbs says:

Gossip is the informal way human beings communicate perceptions. I am not intending a clever way of dismissing anyone's perceptions or comments, but I reserve the right to challenge them for accuracy. We engage in critical conversation and apply the scientific method in order that our perceptions might be as accurate as possible.

Almost all Unitarian Universalist (including the elected leaders and staff of the UUA) are within the humanist tradition, most of the UUs are humanists who use religious language, and are interested in the wisdom of the world's religious traditions. I challenge the accuracy that most humanists percieve what Leo says the perceive. A minority of humanists may take that position, but they have not earned the right to speak for all humanists.

fausto says:

In the first post, Matt mentions the discomfort that humanists feel around "an influx of New Age spirituality and an uncritical embrace of the supernatural".

Is it really this, rather than the affection of so-called "theists" for old-fashioned Judeo-Christian bromides, that constitutes the "tipping point" for many UU humanists?

If so, then some theists and some humanists may be able to find more common ground than they might suppose, because these new influences can seem inauthentic, irrational or even idolatrous to both camps.

I have no trouble identifying myself as both a humanist and a (heterodox) Christian. Nor do I have trouble acknowledging that I find in both humanism and Christianity an inadequate outlet for expressing an appreciation of the natural world that approaches sacred reverence. However, I perceive much of this recently popular "earth-based" New Age stuff that passes for nature reverence in some of our congregations to be a pile of inauthentic, invented folderol with no more legitimacy as a serious faith tradition than, say, the Jedi Way or Scientology.

Lioness says:

Fausto, I wasn't aware of any faith tradition that was not invented. And that very attitude is my tipping point.

Patrick, an earlier poster mentioned that new members tended to leave after 5 years, another after 8 years. I believe there's a study somewhere on this, but it squares with my experience as well.

I dunno, it seems to me that if you're going to talk about tipping points, the conversation should naturally include how to minimize the dangers that drive people to their tipping points. For me, the whole point in discussing dangers is how to deal with them. But it may be I'm the only one who thinks that way.

Clyde Grubbs says:

Like Lioness, I wonder how we tell the difference between "invented" religions, and religions that grow out of the depths of authentic human experience, but I think that the distinction is important. Fausto is not unique in discerning that some UU religious experience manifests as contrived, and while on the other hand some UU religious experience manifests as profoundly grounded.

I think Fausto is pointing to an important part of this puzzle, concerning the anquish of some humanists relative to the new spirituality that has grown among us in the last two decades.

The Unitarian movement originates the European renaissance and reformation when humanists (like the original Fausto) got mixed up in radical Protestantism, and gave us the rationalistic, learned, democratic, prophetic, and authenically spiritual tradition that tried to reclaim Jesus from the authoritarians and mystifiers. The Universalists arose as an American movement in an democratic, humanist, enlightenment context.

Thus the religious humanism that was central to the merged UUA included respect for both a (heterodox) Jewish and Christian tradition and the humanist tradition. Both respected scholarship and critical discourse. (Freedom didn't mean believing any thing one wanted to believe, it meant freedom to seek what was true.) Thus the tradition of Unitarianism and Universalism (and the UUA) has been opposed to the "inauthentic, irrational or even idolatrous" in religious practice.

On Fausto's specific examples of irrationality, I have some reservations. The Unitarians had an earth based spirituality that went deep and sustained generations before the merger. If some of the current stuff is over the top, the same can be said for some UU Christianities, and some UU humanisms. Some times New Age means magical thinking, some times it means renewal of spiritual awareness. Depending on what we mean, I am against it, or for it.

fausto says:

Fausto, I wasn't aware of any faith tradition that was not invented. And that very attitude is my tipping point.

Care to elaborate? It's not clear what you mean here. If you were to survey the devout adherents of any of the world's major religions, your would probably find very few who would call their own faith "invented".

Are you saying that you think all religions are ultimately phony, and pretending otherwise offends you? Or are you saying that all religious understanding has equal validity, and trying to differentiate between valid religions and invalid ones (or "grounded" and "contrived", to use Clyde's useful vocabulary) offends you?

Patrick McLaughlin says:

Lioness wrote: "an earlier poster mentioned that new members tended to leave after 5 years, another after 8 years. I believe there's a study somewhere on this, but it squares with my experience as well."

Ok. Can't argue with that--except that it's not squaring with mine, at least locally. And I'm very wary of the inclination to local exceptionalism. Every time I've been able to test the example, the local congregation's been typical in many, many ways.

I'll ask our membership chair if she'll play with the data on this, and test it. But since I and a cadre of others who have slid -- somehow -- into a range of leadership roles are in the going-on-eight-year cadre. And I see no signs of burnout, or departure. We seem to have made it past the five year mark.

I recall seeing that our average membership duration has slowly dropped--but I did that statistical work for our search process, and I can affirm that it's clearly related to a congregation that's steadily grown for the last 8 years, and been bringing in people who weren't previously UUs, in many cases. The long-long-long term folks are numerous; they're just getting outnumbered (and are pretty happy about the growth...).

We've had members die. We've had them move away (for various reasons), just like we've had them move into the area and come find us. If the 5-8 year figures include the mobility of the population, then they're bogus. As a denomination, we include a large number of people who are likely to move for job/education related reasons.

I'd just like to see something more substantial on the point than anecdote (yours, mine, ours, theirs...).

Lioness says:

Fausto, I wasn't aware of any faith tradition that was not invented. And that very attitude is my tipping point.

Care to elaborate? It's not clear what you mean here. If you were to survey the devout adherents of any of the world's major religions, your would probably find very few who would call their own faith "invented".

Fausto, anything on this Earth that isn't part of the environment that would exist without people is an invention of people.

All ideas and concepts known to people are inventions of people. This includes all human social organizations and all religions. Even the Tao is an invention of people, for it is an interpretation of nature and all interpretations (even value-neutral interpretations) people make are inventions of people.

Religions exist to help people interpret their environment. Their validity is functional and depends on how well they help people interpret and deal with their environment.

Lioness says:

Fausto, I wasn't aware of any faith tradition that was not invented. And that very attitude is my tipping point.

Care to elaborate? It's not clear what you mean here. If you were to survey the devout adherents of any of the world's major religions, your would probably find very few who would call their own faith "invented".

Fausto, anything on this Earth that isn't part of the environment that would exist without people is an invention of people.

All ideas and concepts known to people are inventions of people. This includes all human social organizations and all religions. Even the Tao is an invention of people, for it is an interpretation of nature and all interpretations (even value-neutral interpretations) people make are inventions of people.

Religions exist to help people interpret their environment. Their validity is functional and depends on how well they help people interpret and deal with their environment.

Dan Harper says:

If you really want to try to make sense out of "theological diversity" within Unitarian Universalism, you really should read Paul Rasor's new book, "Faith without Certainty," published by Skinner House Books this year. Paul shows how there are tensions *built into* liberal religion, and suggest that the thing to do is to learn how to live with the tensions.

Paul shows how these tensions exist in all liberal Western religion, so switching to United Church of Christ, or the Quakers, or the American Humanist Association is not going to get you off the hook -- you'll still have to live with the same basic tensions.

Paul also points out that liberal religion is founded on some of the basic tenets of modernism. That means the real challenge to liberal religion probably lies outside of our internal squabbles, and one challenge may be found in the post-modern challenge to any form of modernism. Personally, I suspect that we Unitarian Universalists are spending way too much time trying to solve the wrong problems!

Now the post-modern challenge to the primacy of reason -- that's something worth dicussing at length.

Lioness says:

Dan: Now the post-modern challenge to the primacy of reason -- that's something worth dicussing at length.

LOL Dear, that's not worth "discussing". Post-modern doesn't discuss. It plays! Bring on the noisemakers, the party hats, the Venetian masks and all the tinsel you can grab!

But to a large extent, an over-reliance on reason is part of the problem with the UUA. You can point out the logical holes in any theological stance and any history of any tradition, but you can't logic your way to an encounter with the Divine. That can only happen when your brain is in the experiential and symbolic modes.

I'm absolutely not saying there's anything wrong with reason, goodness knows. However, reason is only one of IIRC six modes of thinking the brain has at its disposal, and it doesn't handle Divine Transcendence. Seeking God through logic is like trying to fish with a pickax.

The problem is, everybody I know is too chicken to suggest to the Humanists that control our local congregation that, say, a Sacred Dance group might be nice to have for those interested.

fausto says:

Lioness, I think I'm beginning to understand what you say. Yet I still don't understand just what you are saying your "tipping point" -- what would be offensive enough to cause you to feel so excluded from your denomination that you had to leave -- is, or how it relates to your perception of religion as "invented".

You seem to be using the concept of "invented" in a far broader sense than I am. Although all religion is a human phenomenon and is "invented" in that very broad sense, I think that the sincere adherents of most religions would call their faiths the result of profound human apprehension -- "epiphany", to borrow a Christian word -- rather than the more expedient human artifice you seem to be describing. Monotheists, for example, would not agree with you if you were to propose that Abraham "invented" the idea of a single God, though they would probably be happy to agree that he was the first human being to "apprehend" it. What I am talking about when I say "invented" is the especially artificial quality of certain very recent accretions to the UU portfolio of spiritual paths -- accretions that, unlike most other religions or philosophies, are largely unconfirmed by either reasoned examination or widespread and longstanding cultural experience.

Leo Nagorski says:

Some of the recent posts seem to illustrate to me why many people in our denomination (and not just all Humanists) are leery about the emphasis on religious language by some others in the denomination. Contrary to what some on this website may think, I don't claim to speak for all Humanists. But, I think I am enough involved in the modern Humanist community that I have a sense of what people there are feeling.
Just consider some recent posts: Clyde used the word "gossip" to describe things I said. Most people I know, Humanist or not, would be offended if one implied they were gossips. Clyde then tried to explain his definition of gossip. Others have been debating one poster's use of the word,"invented" to describe his views on certain religious movements. Some of these posters seemed irritated. The poster who used the term again tried to explain what he meant. And, it appears we are all having trouble grappling with what we mean by "tipping point". No wonder so many of us are leery. If we are having this much difficulty understanding what each of us means when we are using relatively mundane words in a relatively mundane context, how much more confusion, irritation, and anger may ensue when we begin feeling some among us are pushing certain vocabularies upon us all, especially a vocabulary that in many deals with what many of us consider the most profound and serious parts of our lifestances ? I am not accusing anyone of malevolence here. I am talking perceptions.
I also think that there is a distinct difference between, as Wakefield Slaten once said, "reverencing the reverences of others", without necessarily reverencing what they revere and feeling like an outsider if one doesn't.
I definitely believe that all of us need to respect the views of our fellow members in this regard. I think we should acknowledge our history and "where we came from" as a denomination. We should never hide our Christian roots. But, likewise, we have to also acknowledge that many of our members have moved, often substantially, away from those roots.
In one sense, the issue is merely that everyone needs to "dial it back a notch". Humanists need to not go ballistic everytime someone uses terminology they don't like. On the other side, people need to realize that they may need to take their own position seriously. If the religious terminology they use is important to them to see validated (if it wasn't, there wouldn't be these debates in UU circles, after all), then they have to realize that there may be good reasons why others reject those terms and be sensitive to that as well. In a loving community, IMHO, no one should be censored or offended unnecessarily. The difficulty may be in how we get to that loving community from where we are.

Lioness says:

Leo, this confusion is exactly why we need to talk things out.

Fausto, lets back up. My definiiton of "environment" includes -- how to put this in neutral terms -- whatever causes that ecstatic experience which most humans (including me) interpret as the Divine Presence. The original purpose of religion is to first facilitate and second interpret this experience.

Over time, as religions grow into institutions, the second purpose (interpretation) becomes more and more important until eventually the religious institution starts discouraging the first purpose (facilitation) because it interferes with the foundations of their institutional structure, ie the "no prophets need apply" stage. At least this is true of European and Islamic religions.

This still leaves people yearning for and having the ecstatic encounters that religion was originally created to facilitate, so they go off and form new groups to do that with official disapproval from the established religions. Of course intermixed with that group are those hucksters churning out new religious sects that are covers for scams, drinking societies and so on. But you will always have those people who lust for the Divine Encounter, and quite often they compare notes.

Enter modern times. Most of the major established religions don't want anything to do with Divine Encounters, so an awful lot of Seekers are looking for other ways to have them. The problem with the older, more established methods is that they don't belong to our modern culture and don't fully "connect" with our modern heads. This leads to a lot of experimentation, some of it good and some of it bad.

Dh says what he likes best about Paganism is that it is the only religion that uses the scientific method. You try one method of having a Divine Encounter, see how well it works, and if it doesn't work you tinker with it to make the next try work better. Just like with science, some methods and some tinkerers work better than others.

I don't know what "accretions" you are talking about. They may be attempts to do what I just described, they may not. As far as the "artificial" part *sigh* we live in a very artificial culture my friend. I really don't see this whole experimental phase of religion calming down for at least another 100 years.

Clyde Grubbs says:

I agree with Leo that we are struggling over vocabulary, over the uses of words. And that is why this kind of conversation is so helpful. The humanist tradition has shaped our movement, and as a result we have established the discipline that as part of discourse we ask for clarification, and we ask for evidence. For me, perceptions are simply the beginning of the process of developing ideas that stand in the light of examination.

The Unitarian Universalist Association is the main humanist oriented religious organization in North America. All of its Presidents since the merger have been one or another variety of humanist. The vast majority of its ministers are one or another variety of humanist. I would venture that the same is true of the UUA congregations and membership. While we may share a common world view, but don’t always agree on the words that frame our understanding of how human beings relate to the cosmos, and how that cosmos relates to us.
Recently, I was amused to read a publication by a small secular humanist organization that asserted that the term religious humanist was an oxymoron! Apparently this organization with a total membership smaller than a mid size UU congregation held that they had the franchise on humanism and all the religious humanists were misinformed about their own heritage. So I ask, when Leo uses the term “modern Humanists,” who is he referring too? Are the religious humanists in the UUA, in the mainstream religious denominations, and in society at large pre-modern, or post-modern? I am not “dismissing” your theology Leo, I am simply pointing to what I hope can be common ground. To do that I need to illustrate that by using terms such as “pushing a vocabulary” you are framing your perceptions in a way that more than one party can play. I am sure that the secularist that wrote that was simply sharing his perceptions, but in his isolated secular humanist group he would not benefit from the strong counter argument that he would have received in a Unitarian Universalist context.

(On gossip. People gossip. it is observed fact that most people do it. Not all gossip is malicious, much of it is simply the transmission of rumors and observations. The social convention around gossip is we do not check the facts, or challenge each other relative to the accuracy. That would sap gossip’s natural spontaneity If people are offended by being reminded of this very human activity that is so near and dear to their lives, I would be tempted to chat with them about denial.)

fausto says:

As far as the "artificial" part *sigh* we live in a very artificial culture my friend.

I understand what you're saying about religion, Lioness, but you still haven't explained how calling something an "invented" or "artificial" religion relates to your own personal tipping point. If all religion is "invented" as you say, how should we discern the true prophets from the charlatans, or should we even try? If all religious traditions obscure the direct experience of the Divine, what purpose does belonging to a tradition (like ours) serve?

It almost sounds as though you are arguing that we should be receptive to ersatz spirituality simply because we now live in such an ersatz culture, or that we should be willing to welcome anything novel and different simply because no prior experience is reliable. I'm not sure that you do mean either of those things, but if so, those would be difficult propositions for a faith tradition that has considered applying reason to matters of faith formation one of its core disciplines for over 200 years. There has always been a place for creative experimentation in our tradition, but it has always had to co-exist with, and justify itself in the face of, reasoned skepticism. As the verse from Thessalonians say that William Ellery Channing used to begin his Baltimore sermon reminds us, we are called to "prove all things; hold fast that which is true". Are you asking us to abandon the rational processes that have always been central to our self-definition?

Just a Unitarian says:

"reasoned skepticism" ??

I would call it "reasoned faith." True, reason must not be jettisoned, but reason is not the one and only conduit through which we test or prove "all things." At some point, faith is the only conclusion. I'm not talking about "blind faith" absent of reason. I'm talking about reason plus faith, with faith being the language of the heart and reason being the language of the mind. At some point, words and reason escape us, and it is in such emptiness that the faith of which Jesus spoke when he said "great is your faith!" comes pouring in to illumine the soul. Peace.

Chalicechick says:

(((Just consider some recent posts: Clyde used the word "gossip" to describe things I said. Most people I know, Humanist or not, would be offended if one implied they were gossips. Clyde then tried to explain his definition of gossip. Others have been debating one poster's use of the word,"invented" to describe his views on certain religious movements. Some of these posters seemed irritated. The poster who used the term again tried to explain what he meant. And, it appears we are all having trouble grappling with what we mean by "tipping point". No wonder so many of us are leery. If we are having this much difficulty understanding what each of us means when we are using relatively mundane words in a relatively mundane context, how much more confusion, irritation, and anger may ensue when we begin feeling some among us are pushing certain vocabularies upon us all, especially a vocabulary that in many deals with what many of us consider the most profound and serious parts of our lifestances ? I am not accusing anyone of malevolence here. I am talking perceptions.)))

Word.

CC

Lioness says:

Sorry to take so long, been busy. I'm not really as snappish as I sound right now, I'm just writing in a hurry.

Fausto, I never got to my tipping point. My family's tipping point happened as a result of incidents described in my first post and worse, like the RE holding the door closed on my terrified toddler so she couldn't run to her Daddy. My husband's tipping point came from incidences like that and sheer boredom with "discussions" were the possibility of a theistic position being valid was never allowed. I finally got outvoted, and I can't blame my family.

No I can't stand ersatz spirituality myself, but that leads to the question of how do you know it's ersatz? It takes a lot of testing to tell that, and a lot of comparing notes. What doesn't work for one person will work perfectly for another. We haven't done all the testing yet. And as long as everyone's got their back up at the very idea we can't get good test results.

BUT before we get to that point we have to back up a bit. Remember what I said about relgion being invented by humans to serve two purposes, to facilitate and interpret Divine Encounters? The UUA needs to decide if its in the business of facilitating Divine Encounters or not. Some UUAs are eager for them, others are horrified at the very idea. We have to come to some sort of consensus on that question before we can do any fine-tuning.

Lots more to say, but I'm in a rush right now and that question has to be answered first.

Chalicechick says:

We can't just leave divine encounters to happen when they will?

I mean, whether one believes in them or not, I know a few people who say they've had them and I suspect if you asked either of them if the UUA could facilitate one, the response would be laughter.

CC

Lioness says:

Chalicechick, would you leave encounters with a Beloved to happen when they will, or would your court your Beloved?

Joel Monka says:

I believe I am one of the ones CC referred to, and she is correct in that my response to the idea that such an experience could be facilitated would indeed be laughter. However... my experience left me with more questions than answers- I did and do need help with interpreting or understanding my experience.

I get such help from Rev Clear, for one, whose sermons are an interesting cross between a late night chat with a beloved uncle and auditing a college course. I cannot get such help from an atheist who states that a trancendental experience is new age jargon for a psychotic break. I cannot get help from someone who says that any form of godtalk is the slippery slope to the new inquisition. I cannot get such help from someone who says that perhaps both Rev Sinkford and I would be happier in another denomination. When one of the few times I felt a reflection of what I had experienced ocurred within a pagan circle, it's unlikely that someone who dismisses such things as artificial and incented could help me.

There are UUs who joined for the spiritual search, not for the political activism.

Clyde Grubbs says:

Joel reminded me of Alice Walker:

As "Shug" says in The Color Purple, "Tell the truth, have you ever found God in church? I never did. I just found a bunch of folks hoping for him (sic) to show. Any God I ever felt in church I brought in with me. And I think all the other folks did too. They come to church to share God, not find God."

UU congreations have lots of folks that come with religious experiences to share, and to see if just maybe they aren't crazy after all...it is a shame if they are sent away experiencing themselves as wierd.

I woundn't worry about Rev. Sinkford and you being sent to another denomination, he and you have the votes. And in a democracy that is a good thing.

Steve Caldwell says:

On 11 August 2005, Chalicechick wrote:
-snip-
"I know a few people who say they've had them and I suspect if you asked either of them if the UUA could facilitate one, the response would be laughter."

The UUA is an association of congregations that formed a cooperative network to support each other and promote liberal religion. The UUA isn't just the staff workers that work on our behalf at 25 Beacon Street and other locations across North America.

If a UUA-affiliated congregation were to promote a divine encounter, wouldn't that be an example of "the UUA promoting a divine encounter" through the work of one of its member congregations?

We need to keep in mind that the UUA isn't some other organization that resides at 25 Beacon Street. It's also the 1000+ member congregations of the UUA.

If one is suggesting that divine encounters are unlikely to happen in UU congregations that are UUA member congregations, then we have a problem.

Chalicechick says:

(((Chalicechick, would you leave encounters with a Beloved to happen when they will, or would your court your Beloved?)))

Lioness, would you want the UUA's help in courting your beloved, or would their involvement just make things uncomfortable for the both of you?

CC

Lioness says:

I would like the UUA to be that sort of place, yes. Or at least the sort of place I could go to and say, "My Beloved did 'this'! What do you think that means?"

Joel Monka says:

What if you said "My Beloved did 'this'! What do you think that means?", and the reply was "Your beloved is imaginary, and if you can actually hear him, you need medication, not relationship advice", while another said "Your use of love-talk is both offensive and oppresive- don't saddle ME with YOUR neurotic needs"?

Chalicechick says:

Having also dealt with "It's your duty as a congregation to examine my revelation and let me do the service God told me to give every year and if you won't I will do my level best to mess with the entire UUA," I can assure you there are issues on both sides.

I think it is the individual congregation's duty to support its members emotionally and spiritually as best it can and within reason, provided that such experiences are shared in a reasonable way. (E.g. A half-hour description in Joys and Concerns, not appropriate. Bringing it up in a covenant group or in a private meeting with the minister, much more so.)

That having been said, I don't understand why consensus on and collective desire for any individual form of spiritual experience is necessary.

CC

Joel Monka says:

There's no need to come to a consensus on any form of spirituality at all- but I believe that demonstrating a willingness to tolerate, if not actually accept, spiritual pilgrims would be invaluable. Reading through all the posts here, it seems that most believe UU loses out to either liberal Christian churches or to Evangelical churches because of their public image of spirituality. I believe this view to be false, at least partialy.

I think that people seeking spirituality are going pagan nowadys. After all, there are now more Wiccans than UUs, and Wicca is only fifty years old- and there are almost as many non-Wiccan pagans, and their following is half as old as Wicca. I posted a poll on one Wiccan site, asking where they had come from- and a clear majority had been unchurched, but feeling a tugging of spiritual needs. Here's some examples: "...I was raised as a Christian, but after not going to church for 20-something years, I have found this to be very enlightening and teaches a lot of what I believe in and some things I find new and exciting...", and "...So this doesn't get too long, I haven't been to church since then, which is about 22 years. I have always tried to follow a good, moral life as best I can and have felt this was good enough for me. I've always known, or thought, this would never be good enough for God, though. I have just never been able to bring myself to go to a church because of all of the biggotry and hypocrisy (believe me, I know more than my share). Also, if I went, I would be just as bad...What has really started to bother me, is I have lost any spirituality I might have had at one time and have basically been detached from any particular religion..."

A lot of UUs could have written those words- me, for one. But these are not UUs, these are pagans. Why didn't they look at UU all those years they were unchurched but seeking? Public image, I believe, and an accurate image in many congregations. Frankly, until I was invited to come, it would never have ocurred to me to try a UU church- and had I attended during a summer service with guest speakers, I may never have given it a second chance even so. I remember one of my friends commenting when I joined the church "I thought you were a Republican!"; when I assured him that I was, he said "I thought you knew that the UUA was a communist front." He wasn't trying to be insulting, mind- that is the public perception of many of those who have actually HEARD of UU.

To make a long story short (Too late!!) my tipping point would have been reached before I ever stepped foot into the church had I ever read a Boston press release, and it would have been reached in short order had the previous minister been the speaker rather than the current minister. I would have been one of the ones Lioness spoke of, who comes and goes quickly- had I ever come at all. Nowadays many seeking spirituality but not Catholic or Baptist flavors goes pagan because they're unaware of any other options. And given what I've read on some UU websites, in many cities they would indeed have no other option.

fausto says:

What if you said "My Beloved did 'this'! What do you think that means?", and the reply was "Your beloved is imaginary, and if you can actually hear him, you need medication, not relationship advice", while another said "Your use of love-talk is both offensive and oppresive- don't saddle ME with YOUR neurotic needs"?

Yup, that would be a tipping point.

"It's your duty as a congregation to examine my revelation and let me do the service God told me to give every year and if you won't I will do my level best to mess with the entire UUA."

Yup, that would be, too, although in the case I think CC is remembering, the individual in question reached his tipping point first, and therefore spared the rest of the congregation the need to explore their own.

What differentiates those two examples in my eyes is that, in the first, the congregation is telling the individual that his/her apprehensions are inconsistent with the congregation's, and doing so in a humiliating, disparaging way. In the second, the individual is demanding that the rest of the congregation embrace and affirm what is obviously a highly personal, individual, idiosyncratic experience.

Chalicechick says:

Well, yeah. I think they are both illogical and unusual extremes.

I'm pretty standard issue humanist as far as I know, and I do tend to approach such things with skepticism. But I'm not rude about it. I do believe that sometimes our dreams are significant to what's going on deep within us. (E.g. I dream often of saving people and protecting people and indeed the tension of wanting to save those who cannot be saved or who do not want to be saved is a major one in my life.)

While I think that is a psychological deal and not a spiritual deal, I have respect for it as a process.

Online, there's little point in getting into such things unless you've known one another for a long time. Offline, my general standard is that people who ask God constantly for minor things and talk about it tend to think the world revolves around them in other arenas. But people who have had one significant experience needed to be told something.

I'm not willing to call it God, though I might not tell them that. But I am willing to help them out.

CC

Ethan Dickey says:

Wow, and I had just assumed that this conversation would have died down by now.

But I'd like to jump back to the "language of reverance" tangent, if you care to join me.

I have to agree with Leo, that trying to attract newcomers should not be a large concern leading to the alteration of language of reverence. It seems to me that the "if you build it they will come" approach is working. (In other fields, however, "it" could use some construction. But anyway...)

It seems that perhaps we brush upon, once again, the issue of those who have been victims of "spiritual abuse" and shy away from use of religious language. How can we accomodate those who need religious language, without re-opening unhealed wounds for the others?

But at some point we should be able to tolerate others' use of "god talk" (I'll admit, I often find neo-Pagan wording unsatisfactory, but I can tolerate it). For, if we can accept that other people have different religious perspectives, then why can't we accept they have different religious language?

Also, could someone explain to me what is meant by "modeling it"?

Clyde Grubbs says:

Yes Ethan,

If we build caring and accepting community they will come. Word of mouth about the quality of a church, beats slick advertising every time.

To model is to act in a way that a student can learn from. If one wants to learn to preach, reading books won't teach as much as watching an excellent preacher and practicing what has been modeled. I can't speak for Chutney, but I read him as suggesting that older youth modeling for younger youth was the way young people learned how to behave, his point is that adults could do the same.

Leo Nagorski says:

Reading the most recent posts, a number of thoughts ran through my head. One is that I think we all can be much more tolerant and accepting than we are (both as individuals and as a group; I know I'm not anywhere near as tolerant or accepting as I'd like to be). But, I also think that sometimes, if we were honest, "tolerance" may be about all we can muster. I have friends who have felt that they couldn't be UU's unless they subscribed to every "jot and tittle" of the UUA's political agenda. I personally find it easier to accept the person rather than the opinion. I think in some ways that may be a disconnect between some Humanists and Non-Humanists. I have friends in every "religious camp". I have even invited Pagans and liberally religious Christians to visit and join my church. I have helped church members hook up with UU Christian Fellowship as well as CUUPs. But, that doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with their viewpoints. I sometimes wonder if some newcomers aren't looking for the kind of agreement like the one Chalicechick mentioned who was eager to share his/her revelation; apparently more in the way of Moses on Mt. Sinai than as coffee hour chat. I think sometimes when someone expresses that kind of opinion about a personal experience that they have interpreted a certain way, and they are greeted with blank stares, they may interpret that as rejection, insult and hostility. It may not be. It may be the only response dumbfounded folk may have. And, it may be the response chosen specifically to AVOID saying something that may sound offensive. (I was once attacked by a person merely for asking them to explain what they believed about a certain topic). We need to work on ways to affirm the person without necessarily feeling we're being asked to validate ideas we can't in good conscience agree with. At no time should people be "written off".
And, if I may add a minor pet peeve of mine. While I think it is true that there are people who avoid "religious language" because of past hurtful experiences in previous religious affiliations, that isn't universally true. Unlike many UU's, I have nothing but fond memories of my former relgious affiliation. I left because I no longer subscribed to the theology, not because I was "injured" in some way. I think it is just as dismissive of people to say they oppose "religious language" because of their prior bad or traumatic experiences as it would be for "non-religious language" folk to dismiss those who favor it by implying that they were just hankering after the feeling of protection from "parental figures" or wanted some "warm, fuzzy feeling" which those religious terms evoked. I tend to be leery of what I regard as "pop psychology" from either side.

mdhåtter says:

7/17 Monty Vonn said, re: secular humanists:

"We are politically marginalized far more than black, gays & women and we are not standing up for ourselves!"

I disagree, only becuase "we" wrote the US constitution.

You're not persecuted.

I am a humanist because christ was, and secular, because his "-ianity" has been hijacked and rehijacked, written and rewritten, since his death.

UU is the place where we figure it out for ourselves, which was the model anyhow.