Category: Unitarian Universalist Association

Unlike a lot of other bloggers, I don’t mind that the UUA, via the General Assembly and the Administration, steps up and makes political statements. I usually agree with the content of these statements, too.

What I mind is that there’s energy for these, and a number of other non-core activities, and much less evidence that the core mission — the Purposes of the Principles and Purposes — are fulfilled. These are

Oh heck. UUA.org is down. I’ll add them later.

Well, I’m talking about church planting and the nuts and bolts of associated religious life. Fausto made a comment at ChaliceChick’s blog that sums up another turn the UUA has made instiutionally:

The function of our central organization should be to serve as our staff, not our leadership. We are its clients, not its flock. To the extent that it leads, it should be like the Process Theology God, by offering oppertunities, not by postulating standards.

Lastly, I agree broadly with Clyde’s experience that UUA staffers are talented, overtaxed, and earnest. Which leads me to an savory conclusion: at the heart of the current Unitarian Universalist way of doing things is despair.

Consider for a moment the frequent assertion that Unitarian Universalism is unique, valuable, and irreplacable. Add in that there is no alternate version of it in the United States. (The American Unitarian Conference is so small and disfunctional that I refuse to dignify it as an alternative.) All the eggs are in one basket, and the basket looks a little frayed. It must be carefully preserve, and its distinctive features must be played up. It must seem active, relevant, and progressive. It must be convincing and inclusive. It must be healthy. It must be all of these things, but accomplishing them is hard.
A lot of what I think’s window-dressing can be explained as an attempt — not conscious so much as intuitive — to seem active. But without real growth, with real criticism, and in a social setting that makes its worldview seem all that much more imperilled, the do-able path is the one with flashy results and good — well, any — press. Not that good work isn’t being done in Boston, but almost all of it is sustaining what we have. It is in the realm of “getting more” that the UUA falls flat programmatically, and frustrates many for its excursions into inessentials. All the while fewer and fewer new congregations enter the UUA. A recipe for a multi-generational death.

I don’t want to debate “the merits of the case” now but only respond to an assertion Steve Caldwell made on his blog about popular feeling about the UUA. (While I’m at it: Chutney, I think you over-read Steve’s call for research, and over-reacted. At least, I don’t think it unfair to expect those who write about a structure to know how it runs formally.)

Back to the simmering masses. I’ve seen plenty of evidence of resentment towards, and a desired change to, the institutional workings of the UUA. It comes from (some) ministers. For the most part these are quiet, feeling that overt criticism is unwelcome. Perhaps it will foul up some desired outcome from Boston (a new settlement being handled properly and a building loan guarantee are two example I’ve heard; one was recent, the other was a few years ago). More often the feeling is that “the beast” doesn’t want to be changed and so can’t be. Why bother making a fuss; there’s plenty of work at church. Note, the theology of the ministers I’m thinking run the gamut, save Pagans, whom I know too few to make a reasonable sample. (I’ve known laypersons in historically Universalist churches and Christians complain over coffee too, but since when has anyone listened to their complaints?) The one reliable avenue to address bad UUA programs — by which I include those which were born from the head and not the base — is to ignore and stonewall. And people wonder why Fulfilling the Promise (which I still don’t get) and Journey Torwards Wholeness failed to thrive. (The UU Voice counts as an occasional avenue.)

For the longest time — the 90s really and perhaps before — the best way to silence complaints in the ministerial college seemed to charge the innovators as anti-institutionalists, which itself is rather funny as heirs of Emerson. (Though I think the “dump Emerson” proposal is spot on. I’m more of an Elbridge Gerry Brooks — he filled some of the role Frederic Henry Hedge did with the Unitarians, though Brooks was more ecumenically Christian than Hedge the Transcendentalist — man myself.) For anti-institutionalist read not a team player, which might have been true before but doesn’t pass muster when serious institutionalists begin to make the same charges. See, for instance, the Free Church Conference.

The biggest difference between what the former aren’t saying and the bloggers who are is an open vehicle to communicate, a bit of leadership (thanks ChaliceChick) and hope that things might change. A shame that nothing will come of it.

Well, I’ve misplaced/lost all my UUA certification stats from 2005. (Does anyone have a list — including UU congregation ID numbers — for 2005?) But I do have 2004 and earlier. So this is what I have to date.

For those churches certified as of this morning, including the foreign ones and the Church of the Larger Fellowship, the membership has grown from 53,570 to 56,654, a net increase of 3,084.

But this number should be read through a few lenses.

1. 136 of those members are in three new and one reactivated churches.
2. the CLF lost 231 members in the two years. This does matter to me since the CLF would be a special case of how it attracts and loses members.
3. The Unitarian Universalist Church of the Philippines grew by 1,598 members, which suggests a change in the way members are counted. It, too, is a special case, and ought to be regarded as its own denomination (which it is) statistically.

This leaves a “useful” net increase of 1581 in the current sample of previously existing churches over the last two years. Even tripled (assuming that carried through the two-thirds of churches that haven’t certified yet) and you get a modest increase — but not good enough to deflect Michael Duvall’s criticism. (Article in the UU Voice) But y’all’ve heard me sing that tune before so I’ll refrain from saying more.

Normally this time of the year I would be tallying the registration numbers of UUA congregations. But with two weeks left before the deadline, only 216 have registered. What’s the deal?

Because I try (not always successfully) to keep one idea per post, my excursus on TofUUism is going to spun out over a span.

Previously, I addressed those Unitarian Universalists who understand themselves as “non-hypenated”. For the unfamiliar, this is in contrast with those Unitarian Universalists who identify with a particular theology, like Christianity, Humanism, Buddhism, Paganism and so forth.

A couple of observations. The “I’m not hypenated” claim seems very haughty and a bit self-deluding, whatever its intent. Why? Because it presumes that we know and agree to a common basis of Unitarian Universalism, which (1) is not in evidence and (2) goes counter to the general drift of the movement for decades. Everyone starts from somewhere. The claim of “non-hypenation” is tantamount to saying “We are the core of Unitarian Universalism — the definitive — and the hypenates are derivative.” And that seems like self-exhaltation.

Let me be clear: I think quite a number — perhaps and probably most — of the non-hypenates have sincere faiths. But what unifies them besides a name? At least for the UU Christians or Jews or what have you, one can guess with some certainty what the bond is.

Y’all might be shocked to hear that I’m not opposed to definitive Unitarian Universalism provided there is a clearly articulated proclamation of what Unitarian Universalism is and isn’t. After all, I’ve had my bags packed for years, and could easily end up on either side of the door. I think a lot of us intuit that a common proclamation would divide Unitarian Universalism and so it has been overtly avoided to save us the pain of divorce. Avoided overtly, but not altogether. What makes a “real Unitarian Universalist” has been hinted at. Sometimes history is brought in — suggesting that the congregations that have already “made it in” are really Unitarian Universalist, and anything new is suspect. Rather clannish, but looking at our attempts to grow churches, not unrealistic. Sometimes the hidden bond is politics, and this has been well rehearsed. Class, too.

In any case, the more we don’t really talk about what Unitarian Universalism is — and resort to cliches and slogans — the fewer people are going to find us at all interesting. Pop culture knows we’re a mess: how many of us pretend the jokes are funny because we can’t resolve the truth that undergirds it?