Coffee Hour

Jason Pitzl-Waters says:

Some thoughts...

UU needs to become media savvy to grow. It at least needs a UCC-styled "God is still speaking" campaign to get UU back in the news and update the UU image.

Start small in underground and "hip" magazines (and blogs). Go for progressive Christian zines, Pagan zines, Buddhist zines, LBGT zines, etc etc. Send a message of vitality and inclusive faith. Make it known that we have a challenge ahead of us and that we need people who hear the call. Don't be wishy-washy, make it sound like this is for people with a fire to be a part of something bigger than themselves, none of this "you may already be a UU" stuff.

I see ads for Christians that shows a modern-day Mary looking for a place to give birth and finding that the UU Church is the only "inn" that has room for her. I want us invoking the REAL JESUS. In fact that would make a great series of ads.

I see ads for Pagans that stress a commitment to social justice from a earth-based spiritual perspective. Show footage of the Pagan Bloc singing and chanting, fade to a group of Pagans at a UU Church.

I see an ad that points out how the UU Church was taking the lead in supporting the LBGT community. I want a "never again" ad that talks about our role in the Matthew Shepard case. I want BIG photos of us marrying gays. Run them in Bridal magazines.

Similar messages would be made for Buddhists, Humanists, one for those who adhere to more than one faith tradition. I want to see ads that portray us as BRIMMING with faith and God(s).

We need to remind the world that we are a "faith" again. I want to see ministers in stoles and ceremonial garb. I want smells and bells! Capture imagination! No more appearing in cheap suits!

Multiple services per week! With different focuses! Radical Christian service! Buddhist chanting! Spiral dancing! Invite the press!

Sponsor rock concerts (that benefit worthy causes), provide free space to activist groups.

Viral marketing! Viral marketing! If we are going to "I-Pod" ourselves then we need to "cool" the "brand".

Once you have peoples attention we must constantly hound the press! Start submitting essays about our long history of social justice to secular magazines (time to ask all prominent/established UU writers to come to the plate). Hit all the intellectuals over and over again. Take stands on issues often and in sight of a media outlet.

Most importantly, have programs designed for these newcomers that help them avoid the dull meetings at first. Have an "outer court" for those who are just getting their feet wet. DO NOT WRANGLE NEWCOMERS INTO DOING GRUNT WORK! Make the first couple months effortless, attending UU-sponsored demonstrations, attending film discussions, attending fun and meaningful worship.

Q. How do you drive a UU out of town?
A. Burn a question mark on their lawn.

...the following joke must become irrelevant.

People should think UU and think of what we actually believe in and stand for, we need to stop being a punch-line.

I not only want us sponsoring inter-faith events I want to make sure we are visible at them. Spokes-people, we need some talking heads who are able to take on right-wing pundits and smile!

We need to show the world that we are alive and have fire in the belly. We can do it. It would at least be a start.

Please forgive the tone of this message, I was trying to imagine myself at a UU "pitch meeting".

Jason Pitzl-Waters says:

Sorry that I posted all that here, I can't seem to get the trackback working. Here is my link to that same text on my blog. Feel free to delete my first comment if it is too long.

chutney says:

Multiple services per week! With different focuses! Radical Christian service! Buddhist chanting! Spiral dancing! Invite the press!

I love this idea. Or if your community doesn't have the resources for that, rotate week to week.

Have an "outer court" for those who are just getting their feet wet.

Amen, brother. A great biblical translation of the "iPod strategy" idea. Reminds me of the "God fearers," Gentiles who were interested in Judaism but didn't want to "make the cut."

I'm skeptical myself that the social justice stuff would work. It seem we try to do so much on that front that, with our small numbers, we thin ourselves out too much. Better to pick, say, two issues for a good five years. This switching every year makes me dizzy. If we did the UCC approach, we'd find one issue and devote all our resources to that.

And, personally, I love your tone. It made me want to hear more.

Jeff Wilson says:

It's late at night, I think my thinking cap is half-asleep. But I like the discussion so far, lots of provocative starting points. And I think Chutney's right about choosing a small handful of political/social issues and focusing intently on them instead of spreading ourselves way too thin.

I think we need to figure out what product we're marketing with our new iPod business model. Lack of creed isn't a product, after all, it's the absence of a product (at least, that's how it'll always come off to outsiders).

Random possible motto: "Unitarian-Universalism: The journey begins here."

Dan Harper says:

In some ways, we are like Apple. We already have a great product -- an open, liberatory theological message which is not based in creedalism. We know from looking at the demographics that there are millions of people out there who would fit right in. It's even pretty clear that we are getting more curious visitors than many other religious movements.

I believe our problem is that most of our congregations actively reject newcomers. At one level, it's a sociological problem. Most of our churches are so-called "pastoral-size" churches which would rather die than give up the sense of false intimacy that arises when you have less than 150 active members (i.e., less than 150 average weekly attendance at worship and church school).

Perfect example -- try telling many UU congregations to give up the sharing of joys and concerns, and you'll cause an enormous uproar. Yet joys and concerns clearly turn off many (even most!) newcomers, because joys and concerns represents the congregation as a small, tight in-group, where if you don't know everyone's first name and if you don't feel comfortable sharing personal problems in front of a group, you just can't fit in. (Yeah, I know *you* like them, you're one of the few that stayed.)

I'm of the opinion that congregations of about 300 active members represents a good, stable size that balances between the ideals of our polity and economic reality. Wouldn't it be great if we had such congregations scattered throughout the United States, no more than a 30 minute drive apart? Of course, when you suggest to most UU congregations that once they reach their goal for growth they could do new church starts thirty minutes away, again you meet up with enormous resistance, as if such a thing were unthinkable. It's that false sense of intimacy again -- "Why, then I couldn't see my friends!" -- but if they're really your friends, you'll figure out a way to stay in touch that needn't involve meeting at church once a week.

Rather than Apple, we're more like Wang -- remember them? They produced the first commercial word processors. But they got too attached to their mini-computer platform which died when micro-computers came along -- they didn't understand that mini-computers were just a means to an end, not an end in itself. Just so, we Unitarian Universalists have become attached to this false sense of intimacy, mistaking it for the real work of liberal religion.

Our real work needs to take place on the congregational level. We have to start taking a hard look at ourselves, understanding which of our behaviors actively reject newcomers. All the ads in the world won't work if we reject people once they arrive! Having a great theological "product" is useless if we scare people away before they can hear our theology!

So yeah -- it's up to each one of us -- we each have to take full individual and personal responsibility for the fact that Unitarian Universalism is fading out. We have to stop blaming our decline on the UUA, or on the surrounding society -- our fate is in *our* hands. So what will you do, personally, to make sure newcomers are actively welcomed and integrated into your congregation? Will you actively support an additional worship service? Will you help with new church starts? Will you rein in joys and concerns? Will you talk with newcomers at coffee hour instead of just your friends? It's up to you and me, my friends, no one else -- and we *do* have the power to turn things around, if we choose to.

What do you choose to do?

Jaume says:

I agree with the idea that UUism needs to be a product (i.e. with contents) and not just the absence of a product. I disagree with the idea that we should look like Christians to Christians and look like Pagans to Pagans. This interfaith approach will never work out well because we become a "cheap version" variety of the original. IMO what we UUs around the world need to emphasize and develop (also internally) is our distinct identity, our unique traits and our rich tradition, so that it becomes a differentiated "product" that you want to get from its own worth and not because it is the light version of something else, and with services and materials of you-won't-find-this-anywhere-else quality.

ruisseau says:

Or could it be that we are more like Linux—a wonderful, open-source, evolving product (based on a long line of evolving, open-source, historically good products), that some people who adopt, adopt with vigor, but that to those on the “outside” just seems complex, so they’re happy to stick with whatever came on their computer, no matter how often it crashes.

In which case the strategies would still be along the lines of those addressed above:
- Continue to keep (or make it so) the product strong
- Make sure the world finds out that the product is strong
- Make the transition in less intimidating, even for those who aren’t sophisticated consumers

Jason Pitzl-Waters says:

"I disagree with the idea that we should look like Christians to Christians and look like Pagans to Pagans. This interfaith approach will never work out well because we become a "cheap version" variety of the original."

I was thinking more that we are a dynamic home for those faiths not that we are the "lite" version of them. The idea was that all of these different people could find a home with UU. Those examples are "target" marketing. Many Pagan and Christians are without a community or spiritual home, UU should be pointing out that we could be that home.

But I do agree that we need to stress what is unique about being a UU. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough.

CW says:

I love all these metaphors.

We need to be able to express our unique 'religion/faith' with a unified theme and then share the positives that come out of the unified theme. I believe that the faiths that limit themselves to just one path are limiting god or the divine. I believe we could have a unified theme something to the effect of

"We do not limit God!" or "We do not limit the Divine" with a follow-up "We support each other's paths to God or the Divine'. Maybe something like
"All roads lead to God!" or "All roads lead to the divine!"

Then, the message needs to be that our social justice actions and positions come from our religious faith, not just because we are a bunch of LIBERALS!!! (Seems to have turned into a dirty word!)

I think we also need to be aware of new ways of getting our message out. I do not believe we will be able to match the religious fundementalist's financial resources in the near future. They are able to stir up their followers...millions...to give a great deal of money. But, technology can be used to get our message out. Internet radio to offset the many hundreds of Christian radio stations. With the installation of wi-fi and wireless hotspots all over the urban areas....with the installation of low cost, broadband internet access, we UU's can offer religious broadcasts through out the week and the year. I visualize people driving back and forth to work in Los Angelas, listening to UU radio in their cars through their computer or their ipod or their cell phone. I visualize people in rural areas watching a UU Church service on Sunday's on their web tv or computer. I visualize small UU groups (maybe small group ministries) starting up all over the country, maybe tied in somewhat with a congregation 100 miles away, watching the services. We need to broaden our vision of how we deliver our message and sustain believers. The CLF might be able to send out 'evangelists' setting up these small groups. Whoa up there! Maybe I am getting off topic.

We have a couple of UU radio internet radio stations. FUUSE.com, UUPlink.org We need to support them and broaden their programming.

Now the personal plug. I have a show on UUPlink.org. It is called The Culture War. You can access the archives on my website. www.theculturewar.net. I would appreciate suggestions for improvement. (I apologize if my personal plug offends.)

chutney says:

I love the idea of satellite small groups. A college buddy of mine joined up with an evangelical mega-church, and he feels like he has two churches: his small group and the larger mega-church. I'm not completely sold on the whole mega-church concept, but I still think there's something to this hub-and-spokes model for small group ministry.

sA says:

I think the UUA and members need to become comfortable with evangelization - for lack of a better word. The religious right and evangelicals understand that the best way to grow a church (denomination) is via church planting. They, however, actually seem to have a product to offer their communities. I think we - as liberal religious espousers - do as well, but the UUA seems to try to hard to be all things to all people and actually lose in the long run. We wind up looking like we have nothing because we try to actually be everything for everyone.

I think the UUA needs to get with evangelizing the "Good News" of liberal religion, church planting, and putting together a serious church planting venture that trains, supports, and emphasizes church planting. Seriously.

But, I suppose first, we have to figure out who the hell we are, right? Sad. An equivalent comparison would be the last election. Bush vs. Kerry. Kerry was right, more qualified, and a better president (even though he didn't get the job, but he lost because Bush was identifiable ... and that was it.

We are the John Kerry of denominations and most of this country would love to join us but can't even begin to understand what it is we are saying.

We have to change that and then get serious about founding church planting ventures.

If we do not the UUA will become totally irrelevant as liberal Christianity makes its push (UCC?)

Philocrites says:

Shall we compare and contrast current UU marketing approaches? Here's the UUA's Uncommon Denomination campaign for the Houston area, the Houston campaign homepage, and the San Diego cluster of congregations.

Are there any other current campaigns to compare?

chutney says:

Looking at those ads: If I want to be different/individualistic, I can already do that from home. If I believe in social justice, I can already donate money and volunteer my time on my own. If I already believe in myself, why would I need a church to affirm that? All of these sound like good reasons to stay home Sunday morning.

I'm still most impressed by "The Journey Starts Here."

Braidwood says:

I just don't get why you are even having this discussion and it kind of makes me sad. From my perspective, the UU church is radically different than other churches. There is a similar community, a similar focus on spiritual growth, and a similar focus on service, but the BIG DIFFERENCE is that you do not have to assent to certain beliefs, thoeology or a creed to be a part of it. I've said it before, but I'll say it again here: It is the holy grail of community, where you can belong AND be yourself. Really, in the history of the human race, that is a pretty radical idea and the thing that is searched for in many mythic adventures. I wouldn't sell it short.

As far as offering it to the world: I think we only need to market what we actually are. No need for a slick re-imaging campaign. It's important to let people know about UUism in case it could fulfill important needs in their lives, but isn't it ok if other people get their needs for religious community and spirituality met elswhere? We're not a business. We don't need to worry about market share.

(I might post this on my blog.)

Braidwood says:

Oh, I just read Ruisseau's comparison to Linux. Well and kindly said, Ruisseau.

sA says:

"...we've moved from 10% of the US population to 0.1%."

Braidwood, Ruisseau ... with all due respect, it clearly is not working. The point of an organization such as the UUA is social, political, and religious influence on the national and global levels. We, with our incredible 0.1% don't have enough influence to feed and/or self perpetuate our own reason for existence. Zero influence = zero point. Why not just stay home, as one of us already suggested?

Communities of communities can make a change ... individuals are just an echo. We have to fix something here, and there's not a thing wrong with actually admitting it.

Jerry Falwell's ministry alone dwarfs our entire denomination. That is a problem.

Paul says:

Perhaps we have gotten away from our roots! We need to try to serve our people's needs not have a thousand projects going God knows where.

Philocrites says:

In a comment about this conversation at his own blog, Will Shetterly says:

One small part of becoming visible would be to identify ourselves as Unitarians, not as UUs. "Unitarian" has greater name recognition than "Universalist." Keep the official name of Unitarian Universalist Association, refer to ourselves casually as Unitarians, and move on.

Alternatively, he suggests, "Maybe we should be called Alphabetarians. That would be as meaningful as any of the initials we toss around, and it would move us to the front of any list of religions."

This resonates with me only because I hate calling myself a "yooyoo." Mormons, despite their best efforts to insist on being called "Latter-day Saints" or "members of the Church of Jesus Christ," get called "Mormon" because it's simple, direct, and memorable. "Unitarian" is probably as simple as we can currently get.

Scott Wells says:

Uh, Chris, do I really have to respond to your comment?

chutney says:

LOL, Scott.

While I'm not a UU Christian, I do draw more from Universalism than from Unitarianism. Still, I'm inclined to buy Will's argument for name recognition.

The only alternative I see for the name problem is to go with something new, like "Emersonianism," but that opens up a whole new can of words. (And we'd still be at seven syllables anyway. ;-)

Peacebang says:

(I was working on a comment when my computer did a little weird thing and I lost it. If it appears, please disregard. I was ranting, and this is my intended comment).

The church is not a product. To hear the church described as a product is a total betrayal of its ultimate raison d'etre, which is to subvert the dominant consumer culture.

That said, I understand the occasional necessity of using that language. While it may be helpful or unavoidable language, it is language we should be use carefully and with full awareness of its implications.

Unitarian Universalism is its people. And its people, right now in history, are generally privileged, intolerant, highly-educated, highly judging/critical, just as narcissistic as anyone else, and like to spend time with others who are just like them -- similarly educated and similarly politically inclined. They do not like to be challenged and they do not like to be made uncomfortable, or to be limited in their belief that "sharing" itself is the holiest of holies (hence the trenchant brilliance of Dan Harpur's critique of Joys and Sorrows -- the aspect of many worship services that many UUs identify as their favorite part).

Some of our small-group ministry models perpetuate the idea that sharing one's thoughts and feelings is the ultimate in religious expression. (See the slogan, "Small Group Ministry, Saving the World Six People at a Time.") I commend those models of SGM that point to the fact that it is listening, rather than sharing, that is the more profound religious practice (see Parker Palmer's book, Let Your Life Speak).

What do we identify as our religious DISCIPLINE? It's a word you don't hear often used by UUs. Just like we don't like the words obedience or authority.
Until we are willing to speak of discipline, obedience and authority, I don't think we can ever make a stronger public showing than as a loose conglomerate of people seeking others like them for a feel-good Sunday morning experience, occaisonally augmented by liberal social justice activism.

We have encouraged the erroneous notion of sharing-as-salvation by creating worship structures that feed into each individual's sense of terminal uniqueness ("You're here because you're DIFFERENT! Just like all of us!"), rather than emphasizing corporate holiness and the corporate sense of calling to love and welcome ("We're here because the world is broken and we are called to act as agents of inclusion and God's unconditional love for all Her children." -- choose language as you will)

Many of the posters to this thread point to a different possibility, to a church structured around love and challenge. I'm fer it, I'm for a fiercely demanding church that shakes rather than rocks and lulls.
And for me, what "rocks" right now is the idea that we are in fact obedient to certain theological arguments made by our forebears,and that we didn't make them up or freshly intuit them in this generation.

No answers here, just musings.

chutney says:

As a decidedly post-Christian Taoist sort of guy, I can't go with you on those particular doctrines. But I hear your point about not being ignorant of the past, and of treasuring those as our legacy. Because they are treasures.

In the evangelical circles I grew up in, the word we used--instead of "discipline"--was "discipleship." And of both, I'm afraid, we are sorely lacking.

I do think we're a "product," in the sense that any religious movement is too these days. But we are not just a product, and never will be (I hope and trust). For me, it's a matter of using what marketing tools are out there.

As an example: A large part of my day job involves "selling" ethics and character formation to undergrads. I don't think that degrades ethics; I think its just one strategy (among others) for reaching a particular group of folks. If I can bring in some celebrities to talk about, say, eating disorders and consumerism, make it "sexy," and convince the sororities to co-sponsor because they like one of the guest's TV shows, is that bad? I don't think that betrays ethics' "ultimate raison d'etre." I think it honors it.

Which isn't to say that marketing in itself is good. In fact, in general, I hate marketing. But for me, in cases like these, it's a matter of being wise like serpents and innocent like doves.

Jason Pitzl-Waters says:

"What do we identify as our religious DISCIPLINE?"

So what is it? I know as a modern Pagan what my personal religious disciplines are, but the UU Church and my minister hasn't been able to give me a clear answer.

What are we all working for/toward? In ten words or less. If we can't know this we will never be able to spread our "gospel" to anyone outside of our small over-educated clique.

Peacebang says:

I *think* our discipline is something like, "I will, with all my heart and all my mind and all my soul, truly strive to see the common soul in all living beings,and to believe in the possibility of unity between myself and even that person over there whose politics and lifestyle and beliefs are totally alien to me. Furthermore, I am committed to advocating for a society and a world where there is room and time to hear every perspective,if not to accomodate every single one."
Um, or,
"I am devoted to the idea that human beings are all kinfolk, and that God/the Creator/The Great Mojo intentionally designs it so that we come to very different conclusions about the sources of ultimate meaning, and this is a call for celebration and cooperation, not for war-mongering."

Aw hell. I'll just let Stephen Biko say it for me. Wait, I can't find it.

Peacebang says:

Sorry -- one more then I'll shut up. I just watched the two ads from Dallas.Blech. As much as I love the kid who says "I believe Nature has a force all its own," I just don't resonate at all with the series of talking heads. "I BELIEVE, bla bla bla." Show me a group of these people sitting side by side somewhere, will ya? Putting myself in the seeker's shoes I feel like, "I don't care what you believe! If I show up at your church (and where is your church? What does it look like? what do you do there?), will you LOVE ME?"

Philocrites says:

That's SanDiego.Blech, Sister PeaceBang!

UU Fairfax says:

Greetings from a long time blog lurker. Many good thoughts here in this thread, unfortunately the movement, for lack of a better name, can not or will not accept them. Our entire UUA governing structure is set up to allow only certain types of change and only after many compromises and committee rewrites that water down the original thoughts put forward to begin with.

The UUA Presidency, given a mostly compliant UUA Board, could lead the UUA somewhere, and Bill Sinkford has started some discussion on language, focused on his version of public witness, and made some new attempts at growth.

Unfortunately, we have set up the rules for nominating and electing our President that only UUA staff really have the time, resources, and connections to actually get elected. Now that may not be all bad but it does tend to limit the worldview of the people who desire to speak for all of us.

Where is the national campaign to spread the word? Where is the discussion on what a UU really is in the 21st century? Where are the UU religious resources to cope with life today?

UU Fairfax.

Jeff Wilson says:

But Fairfax, doesn't congregational polity suggest that we don't need the president or UUA in order to make changes to UUism? The place where change has to happen is on the local level, at your own church. That's where all the action happens. All newcomers come to a church, not the UUA office, and they stay because they like the church they've visited (or leave because they didn't). And since we 1) are an association of affiliated by self-governing churches, 2) display a lot of diversity between individual congregations, and 3) are not lacking in self-confident lay people who could actively work to change the culture and activities of their particular church, it seems to me that the UUA is a very small obstacle indeed.

I don't really understand why some people think the UUA owns UUism. The fact is, I own UUism. And so do the other folks on this board and in the pews. If I think something is missing at church, I can usually go and get something started to fill that gap. If I don't live near a church or don't like the churches near me, the UUA can't keep me from starting a UU study or worship group on my own, maybe even a fellowship. The empowerment that UUism provides the individual believer means that we have to be the change we wish to see.

UU Fairafx says:

Jeff asks: But Fairfax, doesn't congregational polity suggest that we don't need the president or UUA in order to make changes to UUism?

The answer is yes...and no. The Baptists have congregational polity too, yet the Southern Baptist Convention seems to have both a global & national voice and a congregational one.

Yes, we can affect change at a local level (and many have) but that is it. Without a national voice, without a sense of what our movement means nationally and globally, a change at a local congregation is just that, local. Are we JUST an association of semi-related congregations that adhere (or at least do not quibble with) the 7 principles? I would argue yes. UU does mean something beyond the local congregation, or at least it should. Just my 2 cents.

sA says:

So, given what has been said by UU Fairafx and Jeff Wilson, where do we now go with this conversation? Is it a question of reform at the national level of the denomination, or is it a question of reform at the local level? Or are these organizational entities in fact healthy but just terribly marketed to the general populace?

I am an example of a Unitarian Universalist who discovered I was one after I stumbled upon the UUA website and specifically the 'Principles and Purpose' page. In other words, I brought my already established theological/philosophical beliefs to the community because they matched. I highly suspect there are many, many, many more individuals who are in a similar situation and just aren't aware of it. These folks would join, participate, freely assimilate, and activate if they were only given the chance.

So, how do we get the word out to these people? How do we make ourselves a viable and dynamic alternative to that which they would rather leave behind but will not because of the perceived lack of an alternative? Do we first need to establish what it is we are before offering ourselves as the alternative?

I think yes, to all the above.

Now, if someone can offer me a bit of direction regarding these questions I think we could start to tap into some serious issues and solutions.

Jason Pitzl-Waters, earlier asked, "What are we all working for/toward? In ten words or less."

I think this is an important starting question that was not really dealt with legitimately. Peacebang offered a few answers that I personally agree with, but I think the everyday seeker would roll their eyes at on their way out the parish door back toward Sunday morning apathy. No offense to you Peacebang because I actually agree with what you said. I just think Unitarian Universalism has unfortunately been typecast as a movement for convoluted, high-browed, liberal elitists because of our language, or lack thereof. If we can't relate to the majority of people who are not highly educated, decorated with master degrees, and do not have a penchant for Sunday morning college lectures, I don't think we will become the national movement we need to become to exercise social, political, and/or religious influence. The 'meek' make a hell of a movement when they become organized. Our movement lacks the 'meek.' We are intellectual, but intellectual is not 'everyday.' Just look at the largest denomination and the demographic they are composed of. I'm in no way suggesting a 'dumbing down' of Unitarinism. I'm only suggesting a need for us to honestly 'connect.'

Can we take all that we have learned in these important areas and communicate it more effectively to everyday people and their everyday needs? Are we willing to even do so?

I ask because I know - in my soul - what Unitarian Universalism offers socially, politically, and religiously is right for world at this present time. I don't rest easily with the thought that we may be missing our window of opportunity to change things.

I, as a young M.Div student working toward UUA parish ministry, am seriously wrestling with this very issue because I sincerely desire more out of Unitarian Universalism than .01%. I appreciate the thread discussion because it is what I am investing my life into. I hope we can theorize toward some sort of tangible action. .01% is not acceptable, nor is it a flattering reflection of the extreme potential and worth of Unitarian Universalism as a religious, social, and political movement.

...just my thoughts.

chutney says:

Just posted a longish response to several folks on my blog. In case the trackback doesn't work, here's the link.

Chalicechick says:

I've read all these discussions with a certain measure of delight as this is a topic I've been meaning to bring up for about a week since we just discussed it at a church meeting.

Like Peacebang, I'm not crazy about the language of marketing, though, again like her, I understand its usefulness.

I'm not liking the ideas of the ten-word summary because:

1. It's a creed, or will be one. People will recite it, people will tell other people that it is the sum total of UUism, people will say that other people who violate it are bad UUs, etc.

2. When GA writes a creed, it sucks. Judging by the best example we have, the seven principles, what they will come up with will be a creed-by-committee and thus be mealy-mouthed, lame and nothing any reasonable person doesn't already believe. Thus it will be useless in defining who we are.

Things I think would help in the quest for more members.

1. Shift the focus from "politics" to "charity work." Let's face it, kids, we're not very good at lobbying. The UUA Washington office almost never gets what it wants. We're just not powerful enough. But when we feed the homeless, we're already doing good. And people initially attracted by roll-up-your-sleeves charity work are far more likely to make good members. The conservative churches do it, and they're right.

2. Shift the focus from "diversity" to "freedom." To me diversity is such an empty goal. It's a pleasant byproduct of freedom, so let's advertise the freedom. Diversity will come. But a bunch of white people sitting around arguing about how best to pander to African-Americans is a very sad meeting to be in, and I've been in it.

3. Involve new members immediately. Don't put them to work weeding the flowerbed (unless they like that), but make them feel like they are really a part of something.

Hmmm...

More is percolating but I have to head to work

CC

smijer says:

Shift the focus from "politics" to "charity work." Let's face it, kids, we're not very good at lobbying. The UUA Washington office almost never gets what it wants. We're just not powerful enough. But when we feed the homeless, we're already doing good. And people initially attracted by roll-up-your-sleeves charity work are far more likely to make good members. The conservative churches do it, and they're right.

Amen. In ten words or less, "meeting needs".

James Field says:

"When I give bread to the poor, they call me a saint; but when I ask why people are poor, they call me a communist." Dom Helder Camara, Archbishop of Recife. Except somehow, I don't think his point was political marketing, but rather that it was necessary to ask political questions.

Someday I will get into the distinction between personalism and quietism via Dorothy Day and Peter Maruin, but for now, I understand the idea behind this "Don't do politics, do charity." But I find it morally dubious, even when it might be politically expedient.

In general, I would say arm's length, checkboock charity mentality is one of the symptoms and not part of the cure.

Are we a movement or a service provider?

Chalicechick says:

I don't think I wrote that we should pay other people to do our charity work, though for some people that's the only option.

We gan give men fish, we can teach men to fish, whatever.

My point is that squawking about how a government that isn't listening to us should be giving out more fish doesn't feed anybody even when we're right.

And charity work is a really nice way to:

A. Involve new members
B. Spread our message to the very markets of poor minorities that we're trying to reach
C. Behave like a religion, which is never a bad thing from a PR/FEC standpoint.
D. Light a candle rather than cursing the darkness.
E. Get on the news for doing something other than bitching.

CC

James Field says:

CC: I'm pretty sure I know what you meant. I think it is just as much of a cop out to avoid social engagement as it is to avoid theological engagement. And people generally want to do one or the other.

I am troubled by charity as a tactic or as an end in itself rather than a means. I would say it is necessary but not sufficient, in terms of our congregations commitment to service.

It is hard to be on the losing side of political issues repeatedly, but also necessary sometimes. (Think of the rebuilding of the right from Goldwater until now) As Abbie Hoffman put it, "It is lonely out there on the street, telling people that the emperor is not wearing any clothes."

Phil on the Prairie says:

Three things:
1. We do have a message that's different:

William Doherty, C. J. Peek and the Family Chalice group at First Universalist Church in Minneapolis “set out to create a vehicle to better explain Unitarian Universalism—to ourselves, our children, and other people in our lives.” Here’s part of what they came up with:

You are loved in this world (the simple message of Universalism); and
You are good (the simple message of Unitarianism).

These simple messages articulate the essence of both our traditions—historically and theologically.

2. We can offer this message in such a way as to build a subcultural identity among religious liberals (especially families):

Market-driven media continues to flood our society with a storm surge of words and images that rely on what advertisers call the “five great motivators”: fear, exclusivity, guilt, greed, and ego gratification.... My hope is that through lifespan programming our fellowships, churches, and societies will become places where: instead of fear, we proclaim the transforming power of love; instead of exclusivity, we seek to be more inclusive; instead of guilt, we practice forgiveness; instead of greed, we show gratitude; and instead of ego gratification, we strive to open our hearts to a hurting world so desperately in need of our healing message.

3. If we did this, we could both keep our children and youth AND we would be more appealing to those who would really like to give us a try:

Check out http://www.spiritualityhealth.com/newsh/items/article/item_8262.html at Spirituality and Health.

Sociologist John H. Evans of the University of California, San Diego, discovered that membership in Presbyterian churches that offer a clear identity, generally theologically liberal, is holding steady. Evans calls this "maintaining the tensions." First, the churches embrace the ways they differ from the general culture: "Although an evangelical might feel that there is no difference between a mainline Protestant and a secular person, in fact, mainline Protestants are anything but secular," writes Evans in The Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (Vol. 42, No. 3). At the same time, these churches "draw boundaries against theological conservatives by having an identity as a theological liberal."

Be who we are and draw some boundaries. Is that possible?

smijer says:

What kind of boundaries are you talking about? Boundaries against people, or boundaries against ideologies?

Jason Pitzl-Waters says:

Phil brings up some good points.

"having an identity as a theological liberal"

Yes! Exactly! Maybe we need to shine more light on the great Unitarian and Universalist thinkers? Have we become too disconnected from our history? Who should new UUs be inspired by?

"You are loved in the world. You are good."

I like this statement.

Also I really appreciate Chalicechick's statements on charity. Should the UUs develop our own corporeal works of mercy? How do we directly with our own two hands impact our community? We need to be present and vital to grow. Are we simply a church of check-writers?

Finally, the ten-word statement is more an internal tool to sharpen our own sense of what being a UU is about. We need to be able to communicate better, we need to learn to be direct about what our purpose in being a UU is when we are asked. I certainly don't want to create a "UU Creed" that must be committed to memory and said during service.

Chalicechick says:

(((Finally, the ten-word statement is more an internal tool to sharpen our own sense of what being a UU is about. )))

In theory, that was what they 7 ps are about. But people still use them as our elevator speech and sometimes even to judge who is a bad UU.

I know y'all didn't mean to make a creed, but I think that would be the end result.

CC

chutney says:

As far as the charity vs. advocacy thing goes...

My urban ministry prof once said that there are three levels to that.
1. Giving folks a fish
2. Teaching them to fish
3. Protecting healthy fish stock and advocating for just fishing laws

All three are needed. But the hungry guy doesn't give a flip for number three and won't be teachable unless until number one is taken care of.

Jaume says:

This recent interview to a "seeker" is right on target about our lack of a "product" (=identity+theology):

Source: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/g/a/2005/03/28/findrelig.DTL

"I tried to hook up with other Buddhists, because I always felt there was a lot there for me to learn. The ideas were very compelling, but I didn't feel a strong connection that came from the heart. So, after pushing in that direction for a while and realizing it wasn't working for me, I also looked into Unitarian Universalism.

Your mother's religion?

Exactly, but I started having the same feeling about Unitarian Universalism as an adult that I felt as a child, which is that it's so diverse and inclusive that I can't really relate to it. I mean, if there's an ultimate energy, a God, a force, then tell me about it. Instead, I got a lot of information about variations of Judaism or holy days from this or that religion. I'd heard about people who were so impassioned about God, and how that feeling gave them this love for life -- this joy, this zeal. And I thought, "I don't feel that with Buddhism. I've never felt that with Unitarian Universalism."

Chalicechick says:

((I mean, if there's an ultimate energy, a God, a force, then tell me about it.))

I have to say that I don't have much sympathy for anyone who expresses this desire to be told all about the God in whom they should be believing.

I hope she finds happiness at one of the billion other churches willing to do just that, though.

CC
who was told about God plenty as a kid, but didn't feel the love for life, the joy or the zeal until she sought God out for herself.

smijer says:

((I mean, if there's an ultimate energy, a God, a force, then tell me about it.))

I have to say that I don't have much sympathy for anyone who expresses this desire to be told all about the God in whom they should be believing.

Me either, but I don't think we should give up on meeting that need in a positive way, just because she hasn't seen her way clear to a positive approach to addressing it herself. I say bring her into the church, tell her that nobody can hand her God on a silver platter, but offer to teach her a variety of disciplines that she can practice: ones that have helped others find those answers she's looking for. And, give her all the support we can in her metaphysical search just like we support one another in the rest of our mutual needs.

Chalicechick says:

Sounds good to me.

CC
Ps. Making charity work central to our faith wasn't what I meant, I want to clarify. But I think if charitable work took the place politics currently occupies in a lot of our churches, we would be the better for it, the world would be the better for it and the people we were helping would be absolutely the better for it.

Phil on the Prairie says:

About boundaries.... There's a certain kind of conservative religion in American right now that is pretty much the antithesis of Unitarian Universalism: it believes in the myth of redemptive violence, the absolute sanctity of heterosexual love, and an unquestioning allegiance to God and country. It is a conservative theology that has little to do with the best of traditional Christianity and even less to do with Jesus. For me, the question isn't really whether or not we draw a boundary against the ideology or the individuals who adhere to that ideology. The question is, are we firm enough in our convictions (that is, are we presenting a true picture of who we are) so that those who may disagree with us have some sense of what they're disagreeing with. For example, are we really like this parody from Prairie Home Companion?

Just a closer walk with whoever you are
Spirit of love, may you be somewhere in or around me...
Daily walking--as each person's conscience tells him or her to walk--
Let it be, or if not, then let it not be.

If I were in the conservative theological camp, I wouldn't worry too much about the kind of Unitarian Universalists who sing hymns like that.

sA says:

Phil on the Prairie writes: "If I were in the conservative theological camp, I wouldn't worry too much about the kind of Unitarian Universalists who sing hymns like that"

...and they aren't worrying about it either. They (the conservative theological camp, as you say) are busy perpetuating their ideals regarding society, culture, religion, and politics. They are defining issues and presenting tangible - like them or not - proactive plans.

We can't and aren't doing any of this (religion, society, culture,politics) because we are still lacking a personal/institutional definition, without which we can't move forward toward the presentation of proactive plans to the masses. The conservative theological camp is years ahead of us and the percentage share of the population is a witness to this fact.

I understand the fear of "creed," but I'm not exactly sure how a summarization of the 7 points would equal a creed. Isn't that really all we need to work toward? AND, isn't our constant proclamation of "having no creed" actually - and in all honesty - a creed? So, if we are going to have a creed, why not make it a good one?

I sincerely believe we lack defining characteristics. I have heard it said that UUsim is like "trying to nail Jell-O to a tree." I, as a dedicated person who will die a Unitarian Universalist, know there is much more to UUism than this statement permits. That, however is just me, and a movement's definition is much , much more than one person.

How do we define a movement, given our present social/contextual setting?

Chalicechick says:

A creed doesn't cover churches, it covers individuals. UUism allows, and even encourages, people to have individual creeds. What it doesn't allow for is whole churches having creeds.

So no, a rule that churches can't have creeds is not a statement of belief and is thus not itself a creed.

(Compare: In America, we are not allowed to have a state religion. By the logic of one who says that UUism's lack of a creed is a creed, America's lack of a set religion would be itself be a religion requiring Americans to be atheists. But it doesn't work that way, Requiring no set belief does not a belief system make.)

However, the seven Ps are frequently misused as a creed and I'm pretty sure that any shorter and more easily recited statement would be used that way even more so.

I like defining ourselves through our institutional commitment to freedom and reason.

CC

Jaume says:

Are we inclusive, or are we not? I don't have much sympathy for some UU spiritual currents, but it does not mean that I do not want to welcome them in our churches...

Chalicechick says:

Will I welcome her?

Yes.

Will I tell her who God is to save her the trouble of figuring it out for herself because I'm scared that if I don't she will flutter off and worship someplace else?

No.

CC

chutney says:

The way I read the quote, I'm not sure whether she's asking for answers or just asking for someone to say what they stand for (as opposed to saying what everyone else believes). And it's an instance where Jeff's suggestion ("your journey starts here") could be helpful.

As far as boundaries, all language draws boundaries. Even "inclusion" draws boundaries around "exclusion." And life forms that don't have healthy boundaries quickly die. For me, the question is how permeable are those boundaries? Can they get rid of waste and take in nutrition? We don't want to be building castle walls, but a nice fence (with lots of gates) might really help the look of the yard, and keep the dog in to boot.

Paul M. Martin says:

I put out the following thoughts as a non-Unitarian who has often thought to myself: If I were to join a congregation, it would probably be the Unitarians...

On the one hand, maybe the decline in numbers is inevitable. Unitarians seem like an especially thoughtful/intellectual group, and that's not the direction that our sound bite, sloganeering popular culture has been headed.

On the other hand, I've always had a vague impression of what being a Unitarian actually means or stands for. As someone with strong religious/spiritual interests (MA, Religious Studies, Univ. of Chicago)who has been aware of Unitarianism without really having looked into it, it has come across as the "anything goes" (in terms of thinking or belief) religion. And while the nondogmatic approach is one of the things that attracts me, it leaves me without a sense of what it is that is central to Unitarianism.

Jaume says:

Just another example of what I meant when I quoted the "tell me about God" girl. This one says something quite similar, avoiding sensitive G-d language. It is one of a series of well-known Neo-Pagan comic strips.

http://ohmygods.timerift.net/strips/2004/06/23.php

Just in case it needs background explanation: The two guys are a Borg-like UU and an assimilated Pagan who give UU answers to simple questions.

chutney says:

Seems like the whole "discipline" thread here comes down to the question the sheltered mother asked her gay son just after he had come out to her:

"So what do you people do?"

Chalicechick says:

Borg-like UUs, huh?

Rolled eyes.

Why is it that this is the most common complaint of the least reliable people who discuss UUism?

There was one lady on beliefnet who went through biblically-based Unitarianism, Pantheism mixed with Mysticism from half-understood Rumi poems, Christianity, and for a brief period Humanism, then Christianity again before deciding she wanted to be Jewish. She went through faiths like Donald Trump goes through mistresses and at every step of the way, there were basically supportive UUs on the board who more or less believed what she did. She called us the Borg all the time and never saw the irony.

My complaint about the girl wasn't about God. It was the fact that my take on her spiritual search as she described it was that she quite clearly needed more structure to her faith and was incapable of providing that structure for herself. Admittedly, she had grown up with two faiths that provide very little structure.

I really do think that she will find another faith that will tell her what to believe to one degree or another and she will be OK.

UUism isn't for her.

But that doesn't mean that UUism isn't just fine for other people.

Paul,

To me, the basis of UUism is freedom and reason. As Janis Joplin might put it, we have nothing left to lose. We don't believe what we want to, we believe what we must because that is what makes sense.

I, for one, would give a lot to be able to believe that I am watched out for on earth and face reward in the great hereafter, that the author of us all has written me a happy ending.

No guarantees.

We institutionalize freedom and democracy, which is very difficult to do and hard to live with as a member as putting together and maintaining a belief system is a whole lot of work as we're all hit with new evidence of one type or another every day.

I think it's worth it, but my laptop's a macintosh.

CC

chutney says:

CC,

I earnestly believe that we are all incapable of providing that structure for ourselves. In my theology, claiming self-sufficiency is at best bravado and at worst "blasphemy" (by which I mean claiming for oneself what properly belongs only to god).

I also believe that "freedom" and "reason" are myths, both in the fuller, Joseph Campbell sense and in the "I don't believe that hooey" pejorative sense. Like all other myths, they've been used to justify great harm, and, perhaps uniquely, most of that harm occurred over the last two or three centuries. (But, then again, I used to enjoy going on the Ayn Rand IRC channel as "Nietzsche" to tell everyone there was no such thing as cause and effect. So perhaps I should be taken with a grain of salt here.)

Anyone who claims faith (at all, in any form) leans on the faith of others, even if that faith is in individuality, reason, evidence, and freedom. Being dependent upon others is the bedrock of the human experience, from birth until death. Why should we imagine UUism to be an exception to that?

So from where I sit, she is wrong to expect us to hand her a "one size fits all" faith structure. But we are wrong if we refuse (with some degree of smugness perhaps) to provide her with any structure whatsoever.

James Field says:

Chutney's comment makes me wonder if anyone here has read The Tyranny of Structurelessness by Jo Freeman.

Jeff Wilson says:

OK, here's something for us to chew on: I've just created a 30 second television spot for UUism and posted it at Transient and Permanent. Not nearly as cool as the iPod commercials, but perhaps a start. Please excuse the rough form of the spot, I've never created either a video or any form of marketing material before.

Steve Caldwell says:

On 29 March 2005, Jeff Wilson wrote:
"OK, here's something for us to chew on: I've just created a 30 second television spot for UUism and posted it at Transient and Permanent."

Of course ... if we were really trying to create the "UU iPod" ad, it would have been uploaded in mpeg format for cross-platform compatibility for both PCs and Mac. And I would now be watching it on my Mac OS machine.

Now I'll have to wait until after my teen daughter is done with livejournaling on the PC in the other room.

Jeff Wilson says:

Steve, I've never made a media file of any type before now, so I'm not surprised you couldn't open it. Apparently, this one is a WMV file, which I think means "Windows Media Viewable." Which would seem to mean only Windows-enabled computers can play it (though, it does seem that my Mac-owning friends can always convert PC files, while my PC often can't use their files, a fact they never cease to enjoy teasing me about). If I could figure out how to make an mpeg I'd do that too (can that be played on PCs and Macs?). Any tips?

James Field says:

I was able to view your spot on my Mac without any trouble using Windows Media Viewer for OS X (which is readily available on Microsoft's Macintosh site.

Jeff's spot is a good start, too. People should check it out.

Joseph Santos-Lyons says:

Very interesting piece.
The UU Men's Network and the UU Campus Ministry are co-sponsoring a panel discussion on Young Men's Perspectives on the Future of Unitarian Universalism at General Assembly in Ft Worth June 2005. We're seeking one more panelist age 18-25, if you are interested, contact me!
jsantoslyons@uua.org
Joseph

Oversoul says:

Wow, nice thread here.

I agree with CC’s observations on increasing membership. The focus on charity rather than politics will go a long way I think, in attracting more people. This is true of any religious group-I think there is a limit to the flies that political-based honey can catch. I also think the freedom vs. diversity and involving members right away are spot on too. But…

“I have to say that I don't have much sympathy for anyone who expresses this desire to be told all about the God in whom they should be believing.”

As I’ve been commenting lately on my crusade against binary thinking, there are more options than the uber-inclusivity mentioned and what your fear of the “you must believe in this God” scenario.

If I walk into a restaurant, I don’t expect the staff to be ready to make anything I ask for; I want to see the menu. If it don’t like what they offer, I can go elsewhere; but offer me something or there’s little point.

“To me, the basis of UUism is freedom and reason.”

Surveying the religious landscape and understand basic human religious and spiritual needs, how do freedom and reason as a religious basis meet those needs?

Phil:

“These simple messages articulate the essence of both our traditions—historically and theologically.”

I’m not a fan of watering down religious theology and tradition just to make it “easy.” Those two statements utterly fail, in my opinion, to capture the heart and soul of either tradition.

While it’s important and I’d say vital for the future of UUism to figure out what it is and how to communicate that to the masses, until UUism decides what anchors it theologically, it won’t succeed.

Also, I think there’s a bit of hypersensitivity among UUs to creeds. There is a significant difference between statements of faith, 7 principles, and similar declarations and creeds. Creeds are official doctrine to which one must (technically) assent for membership or good standing. A congregation-or the UUA at large-can put forth statements that help define them without forcing individuals to accept those statements in order to remain members. To me that’s a significant difference. Having said that, one should not rely on such statements too much or try to define what a group is in too much detail.

Paul:

“And while the nondogmatic approach is one of the things that attracts me, it leaves me without a sense of what it is that is central to Unitarianism.”

And this is what I think will ultimately kill UUism if it’s not addressed.

Phil on the Prairie says:

Oversoul--
Yes, I agree that the statements about Goodness and Love are a bit simplistic. They were developed to help families give a couple different groups some sense of who UUs are: children and neighbors. Personally, I think that's a pretty good place to start. As one theology professor I know used to say, "Talk to me as if I were eight years old." If we can't explain the core theologies of our traditions (Arminianism and Universalism) in language that a child can understand, then maybe we are too heady. And if we can't help our families respond in a positive way to the doctrines of their conservative Christian neighbors (like the family profiled recently in the Boston Globe [see Rick Heller's Transparent Eye http://transparenteye.net/archives/000134.html]), then we're not really preparing our people to live in today's world. Perhaps the question should be, "What do you say after they tell you you're a sinner who's going to hell?"

chalicechick says:

Chutney:

There’s self-sufficiency and then there’s self-sufficiency. I promise that I don’t think I handle everything alone. But ultimately, my theology is my responsibility and this woman doesn’t sound like she wants to take responsibility for her own. Which is OK with me.
I will fully admit that I don’t have time to take responsibility for my simple IRA, for example. Morgan Stanley has responsibly for it and tells me what my options are and where I should probably be putting my money and that’s good enough for me.

I don’t think not being up on the stock market enough to make educated, thoughtful choices is a failing on my part. But it does mean I’m not suited for, say, Ameritrade, where one makes all of one’s investment decisions by oneself.

I need investment hand-holding. She needs theological hand-holding. Nothing inherently wrong with either, but we have different needs and I don’t think UUism is suited to her any more than Ameritrade is suited to me.

We could argue all day about how freedom and reason are myths. I tend to take a Schordinger’s Cat/Postmodernist approach that it is indeed possible that nothing is real, but functionally we might as well behave as if we do perceive reality reliably.

Oversoul:

Though you’re right that we do screw ourselves up through binary thinking sometimes, I don’t think now is one of those times.

What the woman said was:

“”I mean, if there's an ultimate energy, a God, a force, then tell me about it.”””

This doesn’t sound like she is asking for a menu. It sounds to me like she is asking for a prepackaged thing to believe in. Plenty of places offer that. We don’t.

As for the creed thing, my concern is that we often use things like the 7 principles as a creed, and the seven principles suck at that because they are too vague.

I mean, come on, how many times have people at B-net said “Well, the seven principles say you should be doing X and you’re doing Y, so you’re a bad UU.” That’s using the 7 principles as a creed.

(((Surveying the religious landscape and understand basic human religious and spiritual needs, how do freedom and reason as a religious basis meet those needs?)))

How exactly are we defining basic human spiritual and religious needs here?

CC

Jason Pitzl-Waters says:

"If we can't explain the core theologies of our traditions (Arminianism and Universalism) in language that a child can understand, then maybe we are too heady"

Exactly.

I have made a series of mock-up print/web "ads" for UU that I plan to post to the web later tonight. I'll make another post when I have a link to them ready.

Jaume says:

chalicechick---- Then I guess that you will like even less the June 27th strip that practically ends the series on UUism:

http://ohmygods.timerift.net/strips/2004/06/27.php

David Dulin says:

First, the way I see it, creeds work best for individuals ("I believe..."), and covenants work best for groups ("We come together to...").

Creeds refer to belief, covenants refer to behavior. Using them together instead of one at the exclusion of the other, is, IMO, a perfectly healthy thing for UUs to do.

Second, I agree with CC and others about replacing politics with charity. "Church-seekers" usually don't want to enlist in a political crusade once they walk through the door. They may think globally, but they're only willing to act locally (as in, I'll help feed and clothe this homeless person here in my community instead of making sure a bill protecting toothless cats is passed in Congress).

Chalicechick says:

David-- That's an interesting distinction. I'll have to think about it.

Jaume-Actually, I liked that one more.

The "borg" thing is so patently ridiculous that it irritates me.

I think I have more theology than before I came, and I doubt my level of gender has changed, but at least they didn't call us the Borg.

My favorite insult against UUs was a very smart Presbyterian minister friend who commented "It's a great religion, from the neck up."

CC

Jason Pitzl-Waters says:

Some (mock) UUA ads.

http://www.wildhunt.org/uuabalch.jpg
http://www.wildhunt.org/uuabradbury.jpg
http://www.wildhunt.org/uuareeve.jpg

Chalicechick says:

The Balch and Reeve ads didn't work for me, but I LOVED the Bradbury one.

CC

Jaume says:

I liked those UU-related comic strips a lot, not because I have much sympathy for Neopaganism (I haven't), but because I learnt to be more respectful about the autonomy of other religious paths and, therefore, a greater appreciation for the autonomy of my own (Unitarianism-Universalism). So I am more careful now to not try to "assimilate" other religious paths into my UU experience, honor their distinctiveness and their specific religious identity as well as my own, and only use specific teachings as a mere reference, as if I was checking the Encyclopedia Britannica or an anthropology book. (That's also why I increasingly dislike the use of "hyphenation" in UUism.) That's one thing that I have to thank the Neopagans, and concretely the Oh My Gods! site, for teaching me.

Chalicechick says:

I had a pagan minister with whom I did not get along at one point.

He claimed that pagans were really their own separate religion, but had problems getting organized, so they were joining the UUs en masse to take their organization.

I'm pretty paranoid, but even I hadn't thought of that.

And the comic strips are sort of ironic if we take that perspective on it.

I found the comic strips to be on the whole kind of a straw man argument. But I've said plenty of snotty things about Paganism in my day that were probably just as bad.

CC

chutney says:

He claimed that pagans were really their own separate religion, but had problems getting organized, so they were joining the UUs en masse to take their organization.

Pagans are the only religious group less organized than UUs. So the completely unorganized would try to take over the mostly unorganized? Funny.

smijer says:

I got Emily Bach to work, but I couldn't get the other two.

smijer says:

Here's a novel thought... if we want to grow like the evangelistic churches, why not try... evangelism? How many of us actually pester our friends and family to go to church with us? I know I do, but I think I'm an exception. Some of them are pretty receptive. I don't try to identify what we are, I just tell them that it's not like other churches, that it's fun and easy-going,... usually that sparks their interest by itself.

The Mighty and Powerful Oz says:

Oops, smijer, I'm guilty of breaking the links to Jason's ads — which I, wearing my Mighty and Powerful Site Administrator hat, turned into active links but failed to make sure I hadn't done it wrong. I have now corrected the problem and will return quietly to my place behind the curtain. (Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!)

Phil on the Prairie says:

Anyone here every read Maria Harris's Fashion Me a People? Folks usually refer to it because she gives a pretty good summary of Elliot Eisner's explicit, implicit, and null curricula, but I like it because she expands the curricula of the church to include these five "vocations":
Koinonia: The Curriculum of Community
Leiturgia: The Curriculum of Prayer
Didache: The Curriculum of Teaching
Kerygma: The Curriculum of Proclamation
Diakonia: The Curriculum of Service
I think we could make a case that worship or spiritual practice is our equivalent of Leiturgia, but as far as I can tell, we have no Kerygma (The term kerygma is a Greek word meaning the act of proclaiming or the message proclaimed. It is the core message which announces God’s decisive act and offer of salvation in the death and resurrection of Jesus. It is augmented by detailed instruction about Christ and Christianity. The gospels are clearly kerygmatic, for they set out to announce the good news. [from an online Anglican glossary]). Rather than thinking in terms of an iPod marketing strategy, I think we should be thinking in terms of our Kerygma. I suspect, however, that given our theological diversity and our congregational polity, it's probably impossible to come up with a single message for all of Unitarian Universalism...

David Dulin says:

Phil on the Prairie said, "it's probably impossible to come up with a single message for all of Unitarian Universalism."

Personally I've always liked Carl Scovel's summation of UUism: "institutional transcendentalism."

..On another note that may be relevant, I've been purusing a VERY fascinating document (well, it's fascinating if you can look past its boring formality):

"An Information Manual For the use of Unitarian and Universalist Churches, Societies, and Fellowships in Considering The Question of Merger or Alternatives of Merger." (http://www.online.sksm.edu/univ/writings/mergerinfomanual/mergerinfomanualintro.html)

It is a detailed account written in 1958 by the AUA's and UCA's Joint Commission on Merger. It's a fascinating account of the problems and considerations that led up to the eventual merger.

One thing that interested me was the variety of possible names suggested for the organization that would eventually become the UUA. A few possibilities were... United Liberal Church, Free Church of America, Council of Free Churches, and American Association of Liberal Churches, among others. Evidently they chose "Unitarian Universalist Association" because, at the time, neither group was willing to give up its "u word."

The document is a good historical resource for UUs wanting to understand more deeply how the intricacies of the merger came about.

The events surrounding the UU merger are similar to the questions UUs are grappling with today, questions involving identity and purpose. This is exactly what the Unitarians and Universalists were dealing with back in the 50s as they inched closer and closer together. What I'm wondering is, will we ever grow out of this? Or is that the nature of our faith, to keep changing and re-inventing itself? Personally, I can't imagine how UUism could be different from what it has become today...I mean, how much more progress/innovation can be made in liberal religion? ??

Paul Wilczynski says:

David Dulin says "Personally I've always liked Carl Scovel's summation of UUism: "institutional transcendentalism.".

Anyone who can easily grasp the concept of institutional transcendentalism deserves to be a UU.

Dan Harper says:

Phil from the prairie asks if there's any Unitarian Universalist "proclamation" out there. Yes, I think it's there. Going back a few years, you hear people joining UU congregations after they realized half the people in their (pick one: civil rights group/ ACLU chapter/ anti-racism group/ etc.) were Unitarian Universalists. More recently, we're seeing UU community ministers developing creative and exciting ways to get involved in proclamation -- I think of the Faithful Fools street ministries in San Francisco, Maddie Sifantus's traveling music ministry in New England, the UU ministers who helped start Common Cathedral street ministry in Boston, etc. These community ministers have been reworking proclamation to fit in with a sort of UU theology of the social gospel, postmodern style. And they have been inspiring lay people to get out and do the work that is proclaiming.

And what are we proclaiming? I think it's pretty simple. We're proclaiming the radical UU message that we can't wait around for God to fix things up for us, because whether you believe in God or not it's up to us to fix what we've created. We're proclaiming the equally radical message that individual salvation simply isn't enough -- we have to try to fix society so that everyone has the basic means of life (not that we have to agree about the means to do this, we just have to agree about the end). Notice that I'm not talking about social justice work as political action, but rather social justice work that aims to help the poor, heal the wounded, bind up the broken, etc.

(And yet again I see that we do have a unifying theology, if we would only recognize it!)

Just my $.02 worth...

sA says:

Phil on the Prairie writes: "I think we should be thinking in terms of our Kerygma. I suspect, however, that given our theological diversity and our congregational polity, it's probably impossible to come up with a single message for all of Unitarian Universalism..."

I hope this is not the case. If it is, we will never be much more than we are now ... o.o1%.

So far, at the seminary I attend, one UU seminarian has defected to the Episcopal Church; and two more have a foot (and half the other) in the UCC. So, in this case, we've loosing a possible 3 (out of 7). Almost half ... not bad. I think this is very indicitive of the UUA's orginizational position right now. I think some hard, hard decisions will be forced in the not to distant future. UUism seems to be dying, is it?

Jaume says:

It is curious that all those alternative names proposed included the word "Church", which is utterly Christian, at a time when the AUA was utterly Humanist. A concession to the Universalist side of the merger?

As for UUism dying... I wish that other Unitarian associations (Britain, Germany, Denmark, Czech Republic) were in such a "bad" shape as the American one is.

Jason Pitzl-Waters says:

CC wrote:
"He claimed that pagans were really their own separate religion, but had problems getting organized, so they were joining the UUs en masse to take their organization.I'm pretty paranoid, but even I hadn't thought of that. "

Chutney wrote:
"Pagans are the only religious group less organized than UUs. So the completely unorganized would try to take over the mostly unorganized? Funny."

Many modern Pagans are indeed turning to the UU church structure. Not to "take it over" as the rather delusional fellow told Chalice Chick but to learn from and find community with UUs.

Modern Paganism is in much the same boat that modern UUism is in. A relatively modern faith (modern Paganism blossomed in the 60s in America and the Unitarians and Universalists merged in that same decade) that has problems with definitions, organization and communication. Modern Pagans are also the victims of some bad PR and the butt of several bad jokes (much as modern UUs are).

20% of modern UUism is made up of Pagans, Goddess-worshippers, and other "earth-centered" spiritualities. From what I have seen this number is growing especially in young UUs. Compared with the 10% national average for UU Christians you could say that any attempt to reach out to UUs must take modern Paganism into account or fail to speak to the areas where the Church is experiencing growth.

Also when we think about growth, modern Paganism as a whole currently dwarfs UU. There are at least one million modern Pagans in America (and most likely even more than that data veers all over the map between 3/4 of a million to 5 million) and experiencing growth all the time. In another twenty years if we keep growing at the rates we are we will be a force that cannot be ignored when talking about religion in America. The only reason modern Pagans are "completely unorganized" is because we never had common unity as a goal. We always saw ourselves as a loose connection of related individual faiths.

UUism can deeply benefit from the participation of modern Pagans. We have no fear of theology or belief. We like ritual and tradition mixed with experimentation and room for personal gnosis. We are for the most part liberal in our social values and share concerns about politics in many of the same areas. As modern Paganism develops and builds more infrastructure to service our growing numbers (seminaries, sanctuaries and a more educated clergy) a strong and co-supportive relationship can only be good for us both in the long-run.

Kim says:

Lots of good comments.

I have seen UUs discuss the "what are we?" question all my life. I will comment briefly on that: We have trouble defining it because we are a moving target. Most religions get ossified, we have held it as our ideal not to let ourselves ossify, and that leaves us hard to define -- it's really one of our biggest strenghths.
Religions tend to oscillate between being too "pure" to be political and being too "knowledgable" to not be political. I think maybe we could use our political liberalism to figure out "who we are": Why are most of us politically liberal? If you have read "Don't Think of an Elephant" by George Lakoff, or other books that address the world view behind liberal/conservative, you see that our view that we are help-able and improvable and that people just want justice and equality and nurturing and love, etc. is the reason we are politically liberal (except for those who aren't....), and that that tends to define our outlook on religion too -- as someone said, we have to improve this world ourselves, whether or not we believe in God/ess/s. I don't think we should be just a political organization, but if we stated our ethical positions behind our politics much more clearly, it would be clear that it isn't just political. The religion could focus more on WHY we are active politically than on HOW we are active.

Braidwood says:

Wow,
People are still commenting on this thread. It was a powerful topic, huh. Kim, I think your comment takes the discussion up a meta-level and I like it. Now I want to read "Don't Think of an Elephant". Being inclusive and open to change are certainly powerful characteristics of our church. Hmmmm.... more things to think about.

Philocrites says:

Dan, I think you're trying to make what Phil called "diakonia" into "kerygma" — or looking for our good news in our social justice work. Unfortunately, the "we can fix everything, if only we try hard enough" gospel is utopian. James Luther Adams kept trying to get UUs to see that our justice-making is not the root but the fruit of a deeper commitment. Our proclamation would have to be about that root: The source of our capacity to serve, "whose service is perfect freedom."

I appreciate Kim's observation that this would require us to spend more time on why we're political than how we're political. (I argued something similar in a review of George Packer's book "The Blood of the Liberals.") But I would also add that the political liberalism of UUs today is probably more the consequence of our dependence on a narrow slice of society than on a coherent set of shared principles or formative stories. After all, the political activists who join UU congregations are bringing their principles and stories with them, but where are those stories being formed? Religious communities should offer frames that transcend and transform those political stories and frames — pointing them to those deeper sources that Adams talked about.

Chalicechick says:

(((But I would also add that the political liberalism of UUs today is probably more the consequence of our dependence on a narrow slice of society than on a coherent set of shared principles or formative stories. After all, the political activists who join UU congregations are bringing their principles and stories with them, but where are those stories being formed? Religious communities should offer frames that transcend and transform those political stories and frames — pointing them to those deeper sources that Adams talked about.)))

Word.

CC

chutney says:

Chris and CC,

Sounds like we need some new, good, creative, constructive UU theology that holds its own and that anyone can read, no?

Jake says:

Hi Folks,

I've been enjoying this thread; three things from my Saturday seem to follow the flow.

1. This morning, when I got to church, there was a hand-written card from the minister of the largest Baptist Church in town. A member of his church had told him that folks from the UU church were building a wheelchair ramp on his house (part of a fix-it ministry called "If I Had a Hammer"). He said that he didn't know UUs did things like that, but that it gave him a very positive view of us! "Service evangelism" seems to work.

2. Also, why I was at church on a Saturday was that we had a visioning session. We're using a process called "Appreciative Inquiry," which invites people to share "peak experience" stories with each other, and then winnows themes from the stories into defining statements--this process is transformative for folks more inclined to be critical or analytical.

At the end of many hours, here's what we came up with:

"Oak Ridge UU Church sings a song of Beloved Community, where each unique voice is a part of the larger harmony.
We celebrate diversity.
We share ministry.
We grow in relationship.
Our song resounds throughout the wider community, bending the arc of the world toward love and justice."

This statement has the simplicity and inviting tone I'd hoped for (and mostly, I sat on my hands while the church-members talked). I also am delighted to hear three historical allusions to our Unitarian and Universalist ancestors in there.

3. Lastly, just as we were cleaning up, two young men from a fundamentalist training college showed up (I think they send them to me for practice), wanting to talk about Biblical inerrancy (snore). Most helpful for an elevator speech was to share the simple message that the folks at the UU church in Spokane, WA are using: "We're blessed, not fallen; we're beloved, not damned; What we do matters." The eager-beaver fundamentalist said he'd be back this week to talk to me; I'm going to invite him to come pick up trash on the Turnpike, and maybe to join in singing Muppet Show songs (practicing the religion OF Jesus, not ABOUT Jesus--Jesus, I think, would have LOVED the Muppets).

Anyway, although I'm a fan of the UU San Diego ads, etc, I'm recently persuaded that the best church "advertising" is word-of-mouth reputation for being a loving community that changes lives. This takes time, but even if no one else ever shows up, it still means you're doing good church. The church I serve is starting to do this, and it's exciting to see!

Peace + Grace,
Jake

Dan Harper says:

Philocrites writes:

"Dan, I think you're trying to make what Phil called "diakonia" into "kerygma" — or looking for our good news in our social justice work. Unfortunately, the "we can fix everything, if only we try hard enough" gospel is utopian."

Phil was drawing on Maria Harris's book "Fashion Me a People." Referring to that book, Harris specifically mentions prophetic speech and political advocacy as forms of kerygma. I'm translating Harris's leftist Catholic definition into Unitarian Universalist theological terms (which is tough, because UUism generally doesn't want to rock the boat the way Harris does). Translating, kerygma means direct action, i.e., engaging in prophetic acts and discourse that aim at directly influencing policy makers. This could include, e.g., working for Amnesty International, getting out the vote, lobbying, writing with the intention of transforming the world (including writing in blogs), etc.

Yes, this is utopian. Thank God I'm a utopian, because that means I can see my faith as a redemptive force in the community. As a liberal Christian, you might prefer to talk about incarnating your faith in action. -- whatever. For me, it's all about Universalism -- I *know* everything will turn out all right, some day, and I'd rather make it happen sooner than later.

"Media savvy" is all well and good, but I suspect serving as a redemptive force in the community will bring more people to us than anything else.

Suzanne Egbert says:

Just ran across this site - wonderful discussion!

Might I suggest as an "elevator speech" summary of what we are: "It's not the destination, it's the journey"? (I believe that's a Zig Ziglar quote.)

To me, that summarizes the core of Unitarian Universalism: This is a faith tradition where what is important is not "finding truth" (a single static answer that applies to everyone) but "seeking your own truths" (which includes the potential for multiple answers that are continually being challenged and refined, and apply only to the individual seeker at the current time).

UUism and Paganism are the only two faith traditions I know of that value the process of seeking without trying to spoon-feed you an answer; that's why I like them. Am I just unusual, or could that be something that has some level of "mass appeal"?

Matthew Gatheringwater says:

Suzanne: You said something that interested me very much. How do you see the process of challenge and refinement actually happening within UU communities? I would have thought the relativism implied by "seeking your own truths" would mean any challenge could be met with a defiant "This is MY truth."

Suzanne Egbert says:

I think that was poor wording on my part. I wasn't thinking of one person challenging another person's truths; I was thinking of continually challenging one's OWN truths. Perhaps I should have said "critically examined" instead.

Too often I think that members of many traditional religions, when faced with facts that contradict their dogma, ignore the facts rather than risk invalidating the dogma. For me, that's a part of non-dogmatic religion that is both liberating and difficult -- the ability, perhaps even the obligation, to constantly question and test my own personal paradigms to see if they actually match what I experience, and the willingness and flexibility to change paradigms when they don't.

J