PeaceBang
The manic mind of the minister -- Auntie Mame Meets Cotton Mather. Blogging about Unitarian Universalism, UU Christian spiritual practice, occasional cultural and political ravings, and the inner life of ministry. PeaceBang is the alter ego of a small town pastor serving an historic New England Unitarian Universalist congregation.
Whither Independent Affiliates Of the UUA ?
July 6, 2007 on 12:11 am | In Unitarian Universalism, Unitarian Universalism: Events |There has been a lot of blogging about the demise of the Independent Affiliates of the UUA, much of it promoting the theory that the UUs for Polyamorous Awareness led the UUA board to call into question the entire IA program. In other words, since they had no clear criteria by which to deny the Polyamorists IA status, they put the kibosh on everyone.
That’s an interesting theory, but since I don’t know whether or not it’s true, I can only report that it’s “the word on the street.” It is also “the word on the street” that one large congregation threatened in no uncertain terms to disaffiliate from the UUA if the Polys were granted official IA status, so that may have had an influence. My sources on that latter bit of business are quite good. In other words, if this is gossip, it’s extremely widespread gossip throughout the association by now. As The Lively Tradition suggests, in the absence of transparency on this issue, those of us who care about the Independent Affiliates are left guessing, and that’s not good.
As one of our most esteemed elder statesmen asked at one of our IA events, “Since when does the UUA board consider it a big problem to have to communicate with groups?” He also said, “I remember a time when, if the Association began acting this much like a full-out denomination, we would have told them where to get off.”
I can tell you this: from what I’ve heard, and what I feel myself, UU Buddhists, Jews, Pagans, Humanists and Christians — all of whom have beloved, thriving Independent Affiliate groups, are hardly at all interested in becoming one big organization of UUs Who Still Care About Theology. Not even if they get a cute name like the BuddhiHumiChristiJewPas.
But geez, can you imagine the GA booth?
And the tee-shirt?
P.S.
To the person who asked why Christians “stay” in Unitarian Universalism, let me suggest two short answers:
1. Since Unitarianism and Universalism both have expicitly and exclusively Christian origins, your question seems a bit staggering to begin with. Those of us who care about, and have fallen in love with, the Unitarian and Universalist theological tradition have every reason to hope — and to expect– that those traditions might actually be known and honored in Unitarian Universalist congregations. Crazy, I know.
2. Some of us, myself included, were born and raised Unitarian Universalist. Why should we leave? Upwards of 90% of cradle UUs do leave, of course — is it the Association’s desire that more of us should go? Many UU Christians were actually raised UU, much to many people’s shock. Therefore, we don’t have the Christophobia that so many come-outers have, and furthermore, we actually believed it when the faith of our childhood taught us that we were free to follow the dicates of our conscience, religiously speaking.
18 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^
We ought to have a contest for who can come up with the best acronym for the imagined new umbrella group. Ideally it should have a UU in it, should spell an actual word, and be over-precious.
I’m not a Christian but if I were to become one, I imagine I’d probably be comfortable remaining a UU. I might supplement with occasional forays into other churches, but I don’t think I’d be fully comfortable outside my home denomination. It’s part of who I am, for better or for worse. Plus, I doubt I could ever be a type of Christian other than a non-Trinitarian (Unitarian) Universalist, so I don’t know how welcome I’d be elsewhere.
The person who asked that question is also overlooking one important factor: family. Even if I became a Christian and did think I might want to go to another church, my parents, brother, wife, and son are all UUs. Since I could remain UU as a Christian, I probably would be very reluctant to cut myself off from my whole support network (plus it’d be pretty selfish to remove myself from their equation). So there’s the family angle as well to keep some Christians inside UUism.
Comment by Jeff W. — July 6, 2007 #
I left a similar note on thelivelytradition’s blog.
This is one Pagan who was at GA and witnessed all this stuff along with the rest of us there. I’m 100% behind the need for the Board to be vastly more transparent on the IA issue.
Comment by Lance Brown — July 6, 2007 #
I really do wonder how carefully the Board thought about this. There seems to have been different criteria established between when the first round of IAs were looked at and this latest round.
Plus, as has been pointed out in some places, there are tax considerations for many IAs (especially the older ones) that do not seem to have been looked at.
Finally……has anybody looked into why the UUSC and the UUWF were granted “associate” status? I think that the real area of contention would be what makes them so different than the IAs.
On the other subject in this posting…..
As a come-outter to the UUA who is a Christian, I left the church of my youth for theological reasons (i.e.- whether women should be ordained as ministers).
I find it disheartening that so many UUs seem to want to have amnesia about their history. As Roger Wilkins has said, “What you have amnesia towards does not have amnesia towards you.” I have always taken that to mean that no matter how far UUs run from their Christian past, it will NEVER stop being a part of who we are.
When I went to Prospective Students’ Days at Eden Theological Seminary, I was asked by Dr. Peggy Way what denominational affiliation I had. I told her, “Unitarian”. Her reply was, “Good. You keep us honest.”
One of my favorite UU people is Rev. Rosemary Bray McNatt. We were lucky enough in the Central Midwest District to have her as our featured speaker for our District Assembly in 2005. I liked her presentation so much that I printed it up and us it as a reference. I hope she is ok with me re-printing a portion of it, but she says it better than I probably ever will be able to:
Consider, first, the task of memory. For
Unitarian Universalists, the past is pro-
logue. We do ourselves a terrible injustice
if we misunderstand our origins; our roots
are in the DISSENTING tradition of Chris-
tianity. We forget where we come from as a
religious tradition at our peril. But we as
Unitarian Universalists have for more than 70
years removed ourselves from the pressing
religious and moral debates of our times,
considering them passe. Until recently, we
had declared the notion of divinity obsolete
—in spite of the fact that there have al-
ways been liberal religious people for whom
God was real—and we had announced that con-
versations about the nature of that divinity
are trivial and unimportant. In so doing, we
did come perilously close to making liberal
religion irrevlevant as well. Our decades-
long abdication of our historic dissenting
role in Christian thought has created a
vacuum, filled by deeply conservative relig-
ious people who have hijacked the language of
faith to which we have always been heirs.
If you are interested in reading the rest of Rev. McNatt’s keynote, it is at:
http://www.cmwd-uua.org/pdfs/2005keynoteaddresscreatingbelovedcommunity.pdf
Comment by KRH — July 6, 2007 #
Thanks, PeaceBang and others who responded to my question. I particularly liked Fausto’s:
Though with some of the snark I hear directed at the Christians in UU circles, I wonder if Christianity hasn’t become a ‘tolerated heterodoxy.’
I wasn’t the one who asked the question first, and the question wasn’t “why do they stay?” It was more “Why do they come?” I understand why a cradle UU Christian keeps coming back. What I’m asking is what we offer to a non-trinitarian Christian who walks thru our doors for the first time. One who has other choices.
My own answer to the humanist was 1) our teachings of “Revelation is not sealed,” and “The prophethood of all believers.” 2) the opportunity to be part of theologically diverse church, worshiping along with Theists, humanists, mystics, Buddhists, pagans. 3) The religion of Jesus rather than the religion about Jesus.
The reason I ask – our church has numerous Covenant Groups on the affinity model. The mystic, Buddhist and pagan covenant groups keep on ticking away. But the Christian Covenant Group has folded. I’d like to see it restarted.
Pace Carl George, the Covenant Group model aims at newcomers more than long-term members. So I’m imagining myself recruiting a couple of the UU Christians in my church to restart the group. Quite likely, this will be somebody who is relatively new to UU. (Several people have been moved to sign our membership book because they wanted to lead a new Covenant Group. One of them went on to be our Canvas chair last year. So the model can work well.)
Before I pitch somebody to lead a new Christian Covenant group, I want to be clear in my own mind. What can a UU church offer a Christian that no other church can do as well?
Comment by David — July 6, 2007 #
I heard the same story in early May about IAs and Polyamorists. If it’s true, then there are several issues yet.
One is should the IA be reduced from the 60+ to the current 4; and I personally feel it should be. I would have made vastly different cuts, and kept maybe 10 - but 60+ was way too many. Do we need an UUs for Traffic Safety, as well?
Second is of course, if true, shouldnt the board had just said so - too many affliates, and would-be affliates, and no easy way to stop us from adding more. Why try to hide this?
Third, if it was fear of Polyamorouses that made the Board not be truthful - then exactly why are they so afraid of Polyamorous? Afraid that we UUs would just add them as another one of our cause deJour and divert more of our non-existent money, time, and people to yet another decades if not centuries cause? (Polys would be closer to meeting their goals getting LDS to reconsider, than to get mainstream America to take UUs seriously). Are we as UUs just afraid to tell people “sorry, cant help you”?
Comment by Steven R — July 6, 2007 #
David said,
with some of the snark I hear directed at the Christians in UU circles, I wonder if Christianity hasn’t become a ‘tolerated heterodoxy.’
Perhaps I wasn’t clear what I meant by “tolerated heterodoxy”. When Unitarian or Universlaist Christians go to other Christian churches, they may be accepted, but theirs is nevertheless not the prevailing, commonly accepted doctrine. Unitarianism and Universalism may be forms of Christianity, but they are heterodox everywhere except within the UUA.
In our tradition, however, they are our original orthodoxies; and other modes of spirituality — such as Transcendentalism, Humanism, and eclectic syncretism — came to us from outside as heterodoxies that we welcomed into our fold.
It would be bitter irony if our original orthodoxies were ultimately to be rejected and disavowed as heterodox even within our own four walls.
Comment by fausto — July 6, 2007 #
David, as to your question “What can a UU church offer a Christian that no other church can do as well?”, my answer is, authentic Unitarianism and Universalism. From Unitarianism, an affirmation of the imperfection but inherent perfectability of human nature and the saving moral example of Jesus. From Universalism, the sure knowledge that in Jesus’ atonement all humanity was reconciled to God, and that even the most injured and rebellious human will is so weak as to be incapable of resisting the power of God’s love for ever, so that the ultimate fate of all souls is to be restored to harmony with the Source of pure love from which they all spring.
Even if in many of our congregations our unique Christian legacies are dead practices that would have to be reconstructed and revived (like, say, Asatru), they are not dead everywhere, and they could be authentically revived.
Comment by fausto — July 6, 2007 #
“We ought to have a contest for who can come up with the best acronym for the imagined new umbrella group. Ideally it should have a UU in it, should spell an actual word, and be over-precious.”
–In reply to Jeff Wilson, here is a suggestion for an acronym:
L.O.V.E.
which could stand for “Lifitng Our Voices Ecumenically” or “Living Our Vital Ecumenism”. But best of all, those who were a part of LOVE could be referred to as… LOVE UUs.
Comment by tinythinker — July 6, 2007 #
Tiny, that’s sweet, but ecumenism refers to unity within the Christian church. It is often used as a synonym for “interfaith,” but erroneously. In deciding to identify itself as Other than Christian in the contemporary era, Unitarian Universalism, has, in fact, rejected the ecumenism that was the dearest hope of its American founders.
Comment by PeaceBang — July 6, 2007 #
I realize the original meaning of the term, but I was taking advantage of the broader usage to fulfill Jeff’s requirement for a silly, too-cute umbrella label. I was really stuck on the “E”. :^)
(Just trying to keep the spirit light given the serious nature of recent topics.)
Comment by tinythinker — July 6, 2007 #
It seems to me that the disaffiliation of the theological organizations by the UUA suggests that the UUA wishes to move in the direction of becoming an even more non-theistic organization than it already is. I see this as a disturbing development for a denomination that is already the butt of jokes about how “the Unitarian church is for people who want to go to church but don’t believe anything.”
The UUA is going to face a very important period of soul-searching and decision-making during the next several years: return to an embrace of spirituality and let the secular humanists leave, or totally embrace secular humanism and let the spiritual/theistic people leave. The status quo of a denomination that includes both believers in the spiritual and those who reject spiritual things like God, an immaterial soul, an afterlife, etc., is an inherently unstable and tenuous mixture. It seems the UUA may now be beginning to make their choice of which direction they will go in — and from my point of view, it is the wrong one.
For Christians particularly, this could be a painful time to be in the UUA. I would urge the UU Christians to consider two options: (1) stand up and fight vocally and vigorously to reclaim the UU denomination as a church that has a healthy respect for Christianity and fully embraces Christians who adhere to the original type of Unitarianism and Universalism (i.e. the Christian UU traditions). Or (2) exit the UUA and become non-denominational Christians, or perhaps join a liberal Christian denomination such as the UCC.
Either way, the booming ecumenical Christian Universalist movement will probably be looking much more inviting than the denominational world of the UUA for increasing numbers of UU Christians. Take a look at new independent organizations such as the Christian Universalist Association (http://www.christianuniversalist.org). Several UU Christians serve on the board of directors, along with Mainline Protestants, Evangelicals, Pentecostals, etc.
Ultimately, the difference between being a theist or a non-theist is so major that a single denomination can’t really sustain a unified religious culture that includes both. That’s why the UUA is in turmoil and will continue to be until this inherent internal conflict is resolved, one way or the other. The UUA is going to have to decide what it stands for about spiritual matters. Sticking to liberal politics and generic humanist values is not enough to sustain a religious movement in the long term.
JMHO.
Peace to all,
Eric Stetson
Comment by Eric Stetson — July 7, 2007 #
Should have put this link in my last comment, but I forgot. So here it is now for anyone who may be interested.
The Christian Universalist Association: http://www.christianuniversalist.org
Eric
Comment by Eric Stetson — July 7, 2007 #
Eric, what you’re saying would be possible / likely if it were only the theological organizations that were nixed. Instead around 56 groups were nixed - most of which were not theological and include general liberal politics and “humanistic value” groups.
Comment by Steven R — July 7, 2007 #
Steven,
Thanks for correcting me. In that case, then there is probably a different explanation than what I suggested. What could it be? Do you think perhaps the UUA wants to encourage greater uniformity, rather than the phenomenon of “hyphenated” UUs? If so, I wonder what such uniformity or “pure UUism” would look like?
Eric
Comment by Eric Stetson — July 7, 2007 #
David wrote:
It was more “Why do they come?”…What I’m asking is what we offer to a non-trinitarian Christian who walks thru our doors for the first time. One who has other choices.
1) our teachings of “Revelation is not sealed,” and “The prophethood of all believers.” 2) the opportunity to be part of theologically diverse church, worshiping along with Theists, humanists, mystics, Buddhists, pagans. 3) The religion of Jesus rather than the religion about Jesus.
David’s three reasons are among my reasons for coming to UUism from Southern Baptist while still being Christian. Another reason is Universalism. I just never could come to terms with eternal hell for unsaved souls.
Another important reason — maybe THE most important reason — is that in UUism, it’s safe to say out loud, “I don’t know whether I really believe that.” I visited a wide variety of churches after leaving the Baptist church, and never felt safe enough to voice my doubts or questions until I came to UUism. In UUism, the response is likely to be, “Tell me more,” or “Is it important to you to believe it?” Something to help me further explore whatever it is I’m wrestling with. In any other church I visited, the response would have been more along the lines of, “GASP! Let’s kneel down right here and now and pray for your poor lost soul.” And that’s no way to affirm or encourage a free and responsible search for my own relationship with Christianity.
One reason I visited a UU church in the first place is that UUism seemed like a place it might be safe to let my church know who I really am, poly and all. And it has been just that, in a weird, scary, paradoxical, caught-in-the-maelstrom sort of way.
But that wasn’t enough by itself. I desperately needed the affirmation that revelation is not sealed, the religion OF Jesus, the theological diversity, the final harmony of all souls with God, and most of all, the freedom to voice my doubts without fear. And I never found any of these anywhere else.
Steven R wrote:
Polys would be closer to meeting their goals getting LDS to reconsider, than to get mainstream America to take UUs seriously).
What a curious comment. Have you asked poly UUs what our goals are?
Jasmine
Comment by Jasmine — July 7, 2007 #
>
No, I think they threw out what some of us think is the baby when they threw out the bathwater. The majority of the Independent Affliate Organizations seem to be such that I personally fail to see why an UUA affiliate group was needed.
The hyphenated theology ones are the only ones that you see people talking about…. which suggests something about the other 50….(and I suspect the theology groups might figure out a way back in).
Comment by Steven R — July 7, 2007 #
Tinythinker, if we adhere to my original rules strictly I think we can satisfy PeaceBang: just name it LUUV: Lifting Unitarian Universalist Voices. It spells a word, includes UU, and is far, far too sickly sweet! I’m almost tempting to propose such a group just to get people to make a queasy face.
Eric: I don’t think your scenario will come to pass. The UUA has no ability to determine the theology of individual UU churches or individual UUs. And both UU theism and UU humanism are entrenched in the denomination. Therefore I predict both positions will live on for a long, long time within UUism, neither coming to dominate the UUA and without either position being able to push the other out. I think your predicted conflict will never reach the crisis level you expect and will never be resolved. I also think UU Christians will never be faced with just the two options you suggest or that a moment necessitating such an urgent choice on the part of every UU Christian will come to pass. At most, we may see some local communities that split, with theists or humanists leaving one UU congregation to found another nearby that is more to their liking, without giving up on UUism or the UUA. Of course, only time will tell which of us is correct.
Comment by Jeff W. — July 8, 2007 #
Jasmine asked me “What a curious comment. Have you asked poly UUs what our goals are?”
I suspect you are not reading my comment the same way I wrote it(although it’s hard to tell from your comment). Try “If a group has a goal for the mainstream culture, getting UUs aware of them is not likely to be helpful for their goals.”
But yes, plenty of polys have been telling their goals in these recent blogging threads….
Comment by Steven R — July 8, 2007 #