I went over to Martha’s Vineyard today to visit with Uncle Bob and Aunt Martha one more time before we move to California. Uncle Bob, a life-long Unitarian (he grew up in All Souls Church in Washington, D.C.), asked me, “So, do you think Unitarian Universalism can grow?”
“Yes, I think it can grow,” I said. “But I’m not sure it will grow.”
This got us started on a long discussion of what is needed to make Unitarian Universalism grow. Uncle Bob, who worked as an executive at GTE for many years, understands marketing. He said that he thinks the big challenge for Unitarian Universalism is to come up with a short, easily remembered summary of what we stand for.
“Well, I think we could do that,” I said.
“OK,” said Uncle Bob, “but no one has done it yet.” He added, “What you come up with has to be short, pithy, and easy to remember.” We both agreed that meant that the so-called “seven principles” were not adequate for our purposes, because they are too long, don’t really say much, and are difficult to remember.
“How about this,” I said. “First, from our Unitarian side, we know that there is an essential unity to everything, to the universe. Second, from our Universalist side, we know that the destiny of all people is bound up together, and therefore we work for the salvation of all humanity. Third, we are post-Christian, which means that although we come from the Christian tradition, we don’t accept any of the traditional Christian creeds and doctrines.”
Uncle Bob didn’t like the term “post-Christian.” “I don’t know what that means,” he said. This is supposed to be a short, easy–to-remember definition, and so we don’t want to have to engage in a lot of explanation. I said that he was right, but what I wanted to do was make sure that we affirm the Golden Rule as a basic moral principle. Then Uncle Bob added another point: we affirm freedom of conscience. I wanted to phrase it that human beings have freedom of will (i.e., I wanted to affirm Arminianism), and we went back and forth on what exactly we meant by this.
We argued all this back and forth for a good three quarters of an hour. We never got to the point where we completely agreed on exact wording, but we came to a general agreement on four points. Here’s how I would summarize these four points (Uncle Bob would put them differently):
- We affirm the essential unity of all that is. [Unitarianism]
- The destiny of all people is bound together, so we work together to save the world. [Universalism]
- We follow the Golden Rule, not creeds or doctrines. [Non-creedalism]
- We have the freedom and the responsibility to shape ourselves and the world. [Arminianism]
Obviously, any such short list is not meant to be comprehensive, it is only meant to give a concise summary; if people are still interested after hearing the short summary, we could then trot out the “seven principles” or whatever else we might wish. Equally obviously, such a list is not meant to be binding on anyone — you don’t have to use this list, it’s just another possible tool to use to help explain who we are to newcomers.
I am not entirely happy with this list — some of the individual points are too wordy, and not memorable enough. And maybe four points is too many to remember. But I think we’re getting close to meeting Uncle Bob’s challenge — close to having a short, easy-to-remember list that would help us to explain the core of our religious faith to newcomers.
What do you think?
I think it’s too many words, and doesn’t get to the uniqueness of Unitarian Universalism. How about, instead of trying to enumerate what we “affirm,” we just say something like:
We support everyone on their unique spiritual journey.
I think that is what differentiates us as a religion. Trying to find a set of words about what “we” stand for requires a vey long explanation because everyone’s spiritual journey is different.
Dan, I think your Uncle Bob is right to object to post-Christian–it’s an attempt to define UUs by what they come after, not what they are. Also, we’re not exactly post-Christian in the sense that Jesus stays a valuable spiritual source. Our only “post” is that he’s no longer the exclusive spiritual source. It’s more like we’ve become a multi-denominational denomination. How to say that in simpler language escapes me at the moment.
Victor, I don’t think UUs do support everyone’s spiritual journey. We’re actually quite critical of people on repressive journeys, and I think we should accept that as one of our strengths.
Unitarian Universalism: We create and question spirituality based on personal experience but walk together and share in the journey as a community.
Sigh. It’s a sad thing when any organization has to work to find a coffee mug slogan to promote itself. I say this because I work at a place that has done just that recently. It’s usually a mark of desperation. Not always; sometimes, like the smiley face at Wal-Mart that appears on everything, it’s sinister genius.
I guess my question would be: why does UUism have to grow? Being a UU is hard work, when you think about it. Because, well, you have to *think* about it. Maybe the real key for UUs is not to expand the numbers of UUs, but for UUs to go out in the world and do the good work of UUism in places where UUs might not ordinarily go.
Like, oh, small regional college campuses in the rust belt. You know…
I like where this is going. I agree with you, Dan, that it’s not quite there yet, but I think the ideas are good. And I don’t think we need pithy phrases just for other people – sometimes we need them for OURSELVES, as we struggle with what it means to be UU, and how our religion impacts our lives. The idea that simply because a person has been part of a UU church for a long time means that they no longer require guidance in simple language is not accurate. We all need pithy points to fall back on, to remind us what we are about and why we are here…..what truly binds us as a community and a religious faith.
*sigh*
As much as I loathe to say it:
“A church in search of a religion since 1961.”
As a long-time UU, sometimes you just have to pull off that Band-Aid.
Last line SHOULD have said:
As a long-time UU, I’ve come to the conclusion that sometimes you just have to pull off that Band-Aid.
Will @2. Will, I think it’s understood that we support everyone’s spiritual journey guided by the principles of our faith.
For example, I’m gay and I know there are people in our congregations who aren’t fond of or are fearful of GLBT people. Yet, I would not exclude them from being supported. It’s those folks who especially need our support.
Many people join our churches who have issues with different things – and it’s really up to each of us to minister to each other. That to me is the core of Unitarian Universalism, and it’s one which we need to practice more proactively.
My point was that trying to come up with a “list” or what we stand for/believe in/promote/affirm/etc. is difficult to summarize because something will be left out which someone thinks is important. So rather than trying to define our religion by a set of principles (“what we stand for”), I think it is more effectively defined as a practice (“what we do in community”).
Being intellectually-gifted, most UUs love to talk about getting the principles “right.” But it’s how we help and support each other on our spiritual journeys that really matters.
Victor @ 1 — You suggest: “We support everyone on their unique spiritual journey.”
I see what you’re getting at, but I don’t think it’s quite true and I think it’s too broad (e.g., we certainly don’t support fundamentalists on their unique spiritual journeys).
Will @ 2 — Good points on post-Christian….
June @ 3 — I’m not sure what “create and question spirituality” means?
Jean @ 4 — From Uncle Bob’s point of view, his church has to grow because his small churches simply isn’t economically viable any more. In fact, I’d estimate that about 3/4 of all UU churches are of a size that they are either no longer economically viable, or close to that state.
From a nationwide point of view, UUism is in serious decline in terms of percentage of total U.S. population (although about flat in terms of absolute numbers). My feeling is that if UUism doesn’t grow pretty soon, it will become irrelevant in the near future — and the fundies and religious conservatives will have the whole field of religion to themselves, which would suck.
Christana @ 5 — Thanks for the point that we long-time UUs need to think this through, too. Just having this discussion is helping me get a better sense of what it means to be a UU.
Jeremiah @ 6 — You suggest: “A church in search of a religion since 1961.”
Alas, there’s truth in what you say. Actually, you could go back further than that. How about “Unitarianism — a church in search of a religion since 1825” and “Universalism — a church in search of a religion since 1852″…. note that the American Unitarian Association was founded in 1825, and that Rev. Hosea Ballou died in 1852.
But then I think about William R. Jones, a UU who did some really good theology in the 1970s — and I think about the feminist theology that has been driving UUism since the 1970s — and I think, nope, we do have a real religion (if we would only pay attention to what’s really important in our religion).
Victor @ 8 — You make a good point when you say UUism is better defined by practice than by belief. You make an even better point when you say “it’s really up to each of us to minister to each other.”
I still want some talking points that will help me begin to describe UUism to someone who might be interested in it. I still want a very short list of two to four items. This list is not meant to be comprehensive, it is meant to give a quick introduction to UUism — it is in effect an “elevator speech” in a somewhat different form. This is all about communication — and even if we never use the list, just arguing about it will help us to better articulate what it means to be a Unitarian Universalist.
Dan @ 9. Yes we don’t support fundamentalists, but they aren’t on a spiritual journey – they’ve already “arrived.” However, for fundamentalists who have questions about their spiritual journey, then, yes, we need to support them. Fundamentalists can exist in any religion – even ours.
Trying to define UUism by a set of theological statements (as in your first attempt) is difficult because our faith is best defined by what it isn’t – we are non-creedal, meaning we don’t have a set of theological statements you have to subscribe to. So, let’s eliminate your bullets 1, 2 and 4.
That leaves bullet #3, the Golden Rule. That is what all religions teach – the problem is that it gets perverted by various inaccurate interpretations. Very simply then UUism can be viewed as an attempt to get rid of theological mis-interpretations of the Golden Rule and get back to practicing it. BTW, that’s what Jesus taught… Let’s face it, I think we’re closet Christians, not post-Christians. ;- )
UU: “Good treats at coffee hour. Usually.”
Dan,
I don’t disagree at all, actually. I had the pleasure of talking to some fellow UU’s last night after our Bible Discussion Group (we actually segued onto the Gospel of Thomas, but those are details). We bandied issues of faith around for a bit, and ultimately decided that any faith professing a belief in continuing revelation will perpetually be in the process of becoming. But it IS a spiritual and religious process.
However, there is still a potent cadre of mainstream UU’s (from what I call tell, almost all of them Boomers who came to the religion after fleeing a previous one) who like to think of UU’ism as a liberal social action society, and in fact, this, too has dogged the respective U’s for some time. The very notion of faith and belief and discussions of the divine are vaguely repellant to them. My first true UU church experience with a place with an avowed athiest minister who delighted in punching holes in other faiths, however deftly and subtly conveyed.
I continue to struggle to find a somewhat more spiritual framework for UU’s as a shared faith, especially when faced with withering questions from my High-School aged youth. They don’t shy away from punches, and the majority of them disappear for good upon hearing a mushy non-answer. The answer, of course, appears to vary by congregation and by individual, but I would say that answering Uncle Bob’s challenge to some extent must contain a nugget of something more than progressive human behavior requests.
Dan — Ok, I guess I buy the “economically viable” line. I suppose. If that’s the case, and expansion is the key, then here are some coffee mug slogans (besides Carol’s, which I like a lot!):
UUs: We talk. You Listen.
UU: Not Irrelevant, Irreverent!
Love, Peace, & Great Coffee: UU
Actually, the church I like most around here has a marquis outside its door which has not changed in, oh, fifteen years: “You will find a welcome here.” I asked the pastor about it once, and he said: you know, that’s kind of a challenge I set for us. If someone doesn’t find a welcome, the sign comes down. The sign is still up. And it’s a little church in the middle of nowhere (by east coast standards, that is).
And, for what it’s worth, a blanket condemnation of all fundamental religions and conservative Christians really isn’t very nice, is it? I mean it’s kind of…oh…prejudiced (*gasp*). Just sayin’…
Victor @ 10 — You write: “…we are non-creedal, meaning we don’t have a set of theological statements you have to subscribe to.”
I think you and I are saying much the same thing, but I don’t agree with your definition of “theology.” Creeds and theologies are two quite different beasties. Creeds are prescriptive. Theologies can be descriptive, and I’m using “theologies” in the descriptive sense of the word (see Anthony Pinn’s writings for exposition of, and application of, descriptive theology).
Based on years of careful observation, I feel we Unitarian Unviersalists do have several dominant theologies: feminist theology (women are just as good as men); humanocentric theology (per William R. Jones — we don’t believe a god will always bail us out of trouble, so we take responsibility for our own actions); universalist theology (that all persons are essentially good, or inherently good if you will); process theology (everything changes and evolves); and queer theology (LGBT folk are just as good as straight folk) — to name the most prominent and widespread theologies.
Each of these theologies is open to debate in UU circles. E.g., when it comes to feminist theology, some of us are challenging the dominant second-wave feminist theologies by advancing the claims of womanist and third-wave feminist theologies. Yet while some of these theologies are hotly contested, they are pretty generally held among UUs.
And now that I write this, it makes me think that one good way to describe Unitarian Universalism is as a religion for feminists.
carol @ 11 — Oo, oo, put it on a Cafepress coffee mug!
Jeremiah @ 12 — You write: “High-School aged youth… don’t shy away from punches, and the majority of them disappear for good upon hearing a mushy non-answer.”
I think high-school age youth are hungry for real theology. See my reply to Victor (just above) for a list of what I believe to be commonly-held UU theologies. What if we started doing serious theology with youth? — instead of doing youth groups that look like 1970’s-era encounter groups. It’s something I’ve been thinking about for some time….
Jean @ 13 — You write: “UU: Not Irrelevant, Irreverent!”
Let’s be more positive — how about “UU: Irrelevant AND Irreverent!”
You also write: “And, for what it’s worth, a blanket condemnation of all fundamental religions and conservative Christians really isn’t very nice, is it?”
No, it’s not nice. I see no particular reason to be nice when it comes to fundamentalist religion. The worst fundamentalism is simply a social pathology that needs to be dealt with. The best fundamentalism — well, the best I can say about it is that it isn’t entirely destructive.
As for conservative Christians — I ahve learned a lot from some of them, and have had some serious and productive encounters with some of them. But enough conservative Christians say pretty nasty things about religious liberals like me that I no longer feel any need to be nice.
Dan @15 Dan, I’m not sure I follow you completely – and I haven’t read anything by Anthony Pinn – but I suspect that the more commonly-held understanding of theology is that it has to do with the study of religious questions such as the nature of God, sin, and salvation. I think what you call descriptive theology, I would simply call values. Whatever they’re called, I agree with you that we have several dominant theologies/values that we all share.
However, “Uncle Bob’s” challenge was to come up with some short, pithy statement to describe us. So, if we go the route of explaining our theologies/values, that leads to a long explanation on which we will not all agree (as you’ve pointed out.)
So, I’d still go with my initial “spiritual jouney” statement or I think what June@3 said comes closer to describing who we are, as it puts the emphasis on spiritual questing and our support for each other.
BTW thanks for engaging us all in this discussion. It’s illuminating, but also somewhat frustrating.
I teach enough students who also happen to be conservative Christians that I’ve had the opportunity to begin to understand how they think…a bit. And, to find ways to engage in productive conversations that lead us both toward common ground. It can be done, believe it or not.
Dan@15 – I agree. Our youth group is now reading books on religion and theology, discussing them, and discussing our own belief systems. The configuration for youth groups established way back when really seems to be little more than an extended therapy session – “Hi, I’m John and I’m a UU.” It’s self-absorbed, leads to little in the way of spiritual development, and youth will move on to the next interesting thing eventually.
As an aside, I share the same concern with the rampant overuse of Joys and Concerns, as our congregation has the same people up week after week, telling us the minutiae of their lives. It’s narcissistic and doesn’t scale at all well to larger congregations (and in fact most of the resistance I see from people to larger congregations is from the ones accustomed to self-exposition). But once that method is established among the youth, it seals their fates as adults in the unlikely scenario that they ever come back to the church.