That’s all I was going to say, but now that I’ve read the earlier comments, I’ll expand.

There’s nothing wrong with being of like mind. For us Christians there’s even Scripture about it– notably 1 Corinthians (2:15-16), which focuses more broadly on the value of great differences in church participants. The problem is when that’s the goal, or a leading goal.

Rather, I think that being of one mind comes about healthily through loving and working together as a community– and that it’s not likely to look much like what people might immediately think of.

(This is a major reason for my love for Sara Miles’s Take This Bread, BTW.)

So I’m with PeaceBang, and say again, Amen.

The minister in the Unitarian Universalist tradition is not staff. They are not hired, they are called. Time does not permit my lengthy reflections on how the degeneration of this understanding in our movement has led to weaker ministry and weaker laity, but maybe another time.

PB, could I suggest a post (I’d start one… but my blog’s a backwater… and I’m slammed for the next couple days at least, as well as solo parenting for the week…) about what a minister is, and what staff is and…

Many, many would benefit.

I think, theoretically, the folks you talk to could do those things in any of the already-existing churches, synagoges, mosques, etc, in their town.

To me, wanting to do those things with those who are theologically like-minded and believe in Free Religion like I do is a good reason to start a church.

CC
who is totally with you that ministers aren’t staff, but has had to explain the point to enough people that she sees Ogre’s point, too.

Seriously.

Even within a large tradition — say Catholicism — that’s exactly what happens. People find that they’re attending a parish that really doesn’t meet their needs, preach the faith they understand… but the one next door does and they go there (I’ve known a number of Catholics who did this–and the beef, often enough, was that they couldn’t find much justice-doing and mercy-loving where they were supposed to be going.)

Note that the fellowship is still there, lo these many years later. That’s a lot more success than many starts claim, sadly (there’s one not too far from us that’s a few years old that’s been very supported by ministers and lay folk… and I and my minister aren’t feeling very hopeful for. Too attached already to the idea of a minister, too unable to do the small but growing on our own (mostly) fellowship thing).

Yes, the place you’re pointing to has fallen short of its vision. And… that’s true of the vast majority of our congregations, no? Is yours living up to its ideals for growth and what it would be 10 years ago? Mine’s not–and yet it’s thriving. Just not as much or as well as hoped for.

You’re nailing them for what they think they’re about–and yet that’s a core failing for the entire darn movement, in which few people (including ministers, too often) can really articulate what we’re about. Harsh, PB. Small means that the model is very, very different–it’s an extended family. That’s what works–and survives. In time it can (and does) grow into something that has to painfully metamorphose into something different. What I’m reading sounds like a hard condemnation of the family church.

Ministers are not staff. True. Fact.

And for a congregation that’s never called and had a minister for a long period of time… that’s not going to be well understood. It’s kinda subtle–after all, the parish employs the minister, no? What’s the difference? (Yes, I know. You know. But they don’t, and can’t, unless they’ve been “there” and they haven’t.)

You write:

I spent all evening and most of a Sunday morning with this small band of folks and never once heard them express interest in anything other than promoting the UU principles in their wider community

Oh, for a community of UUs that evangelical. They’re too darned small to have a lot (or a need for a lot) of systems. Systems are efficient when things are big, and a screaming pain in the butt when you’re small. Our congregation ran well for 40+ years with minimal systems. It’s a screaming pain in the butt NOW, as we have to create the systems we NEED… now. But we didn’t need them in the past. Jet engines on a VW bus are a bad idea. Programs? WHO is going to set up and run those on an ongoing basis? FOR WHOM? They’re too small. That scale church is a very different beast.

And yes, the transition from that size on up–unless you’re so lucky as to make it swiftly enough that the transition is without real plateaus where people get comfortable and feel that this is how it’s “always been” and how it’s supposed to be…–is damned hard, because you give up really meaningful, precious things to get… other really valuable and important things. Been there, and I’ve been midwifing (not alone, but a small group…) that very change for over three years for a congregation that has had time to be successful (building, land, money in the bank, called ministers for almost 20 years, growth for 10…). It’s hard, and people ARE being asked to give up things central to themselves in order to get… things that are promises.

The smaller you are, the more you need and want to be “of like mind.” It works. And as you grow, you WILL be and become more diverse–and should aim to and should celebrate that and embrace it.

Once again, I’m going to point out that the only meaningfully successful growth program we’ve had in generations was the fellowship movement. It could have been done better, and it would have benefited from more support. But it worked; nearly a third of our congregations NOW are or were those, and about the same number of UUs, too. The model works. With support and tolerance–and improvements–we could do it again. But what I keep hearing is this UUA and ministerial desire to plant substantial churches ab ovo, instead. Spending lots of money, too.

They fail. They failed in the past. They hav failed recently. With plenty of money and support.

The quirky, irascible… small… fellowships worked.

Weeds.

But you know what… weeds are insanely successful, biologically speaking. Are we obsessed with getting what we think we want in advance, or with success?

Love ya, and I think you’re wrong, and barking up the wrong tree. You’re expecting things that aren’t really reasonable, plausible or growth-enhancing for a small congregation. Different evolutionary pressures.

Here’s a de-caf from this marvelous place I found down the road. Free wi-fi, not $tarbuks, very green and responsible about the coffee, the cups, the whole thing.

[Ogre, love ya too and I think I pushed a button here. I’m not feeling “harsh” about this at all, just musing aloud. The “like-minded people” thing is a failing of all mainline religious churches these days IMHO. We could be getting deeper and challenging ourselves on this key theological understanding of what our purpose is. I’m talking not reality but idealism. I’m spending 4-5 hours a day in an intensive course on spiritual discernment right now and it’s seeping into the way I see everything right now. - PB]