Soft-Core Liberal Religion

June 26, 2009 on 12:49 pm | In Unitarian Universalism | 5 Comments

I was talking with an esteemed elder colleague a few months ago about both our resignations from a Unitarian Universalist organization we had loved and supported for many years. She bemoaned the “dumbing down” of the organization’s public presence and I complained of the chasm between its “sweetie, nicie” public image and the reality of its lack of accountability or care for volunteer leaders. We wrote e-mails back and forth for awhile until we processed through our disappointment and sense of loss.

Looking at some of the materials coming out of the UUA right now, I wince in a similar way. It seems like soft-core liberal religion to me: all Kenny G musical arrangements and soft-focus photographs and the use of pious language most Unitarian Universalists heartily eschew in their own congregations. Aside from the fact that our productions values seem to be persistently corny and a few decades behind the times, I am embarrassed by these campaigns, ads, statements, whatever they are — because they seem to me smarmy rather than smart, and sentimental rather than morally powerful.

We are heirs of an intellectually impressive tradition but looking at many of our public materials lately, you’d never know it. Perhaps it is the effort to seem “spiritual but not religious” or to please too many critics, or to appeal to an Oprah-fied (ie, feminized) culture, that we produce these soft-core pieces.

Whatever it is, it makes me cringe. I think about my typical Sunday experience with my own congregation: smart, sharp, articulate, funny, with-it, angry-at-injustice, challenging, hard-working, cool and did I say SHARP? people of all ages and diverse backgrounds — and I am especially embarrassed by the disconnect between them and the PR materials that claim to represent them.

“I hate goodies. I hate goodness that preaches. My goodness must have an edge to it, else it is none.” Mr. Emerson said that, or something like it (I’m quoting from memory), and that’s what I mean. That edge he’s talking about is what I think UUs have, and although sometimes we have it in toxic amounts, it is also what gives us a great deal of our charisma and attraction. Call it the critical edge. Call it the bullshit-detector edge. Call it what you like, but please, let’s see more of it in our PR materials. Not smarmy superiority, not sentimental self-congratulations, but EDGE.

5 Comments

  1. Well said PB!

    So I approach my Latina niece’s estrangement from their own faith (but first preemptively apologize for fear our diversity lingo make them feel objects of a marketing campaign rather than as individuals on their own journeys) and offer them this soft-core as alternative?

    I don’t see it in my Church (much) but I fear where some of this thinness in critical though taking us.

    [Amen back atchya. "Our diversity lingo makes them feel objects of a marketing campaign..." Whoa. Yep. - PB]

    Comment by Bill Baar — June 26, 2009 #

  2. I’d be interested in knowing more specifics about what specific promotional material from the UUA you’re referring to. And I’d be interested in your specific ideas for changing these materials. I have an idea what you’re talking about, but I’m not sure I understand as well as I would like.

    Do most UUs pay much attention to this promotional material? Or even non-UUs? What do we know about this?

    I suspect the problem may be partly what you mention about trying to “please too many critics”. A local congregation and minister can fine-tune its message so it is in accord with local norms yet has some edge to it. This is harder to do at the national level, with the greater diversity of beliefs among UUs in different congregations and different areas of the country.

    Comment by Tim Bartik — June 26, 2009 #

  3. I have been following along in the blogs about GA where there has been discussion about the fact that in spite of the significant effort at diversifying our congregations (Welcoming Congregation, Anti Racism initiative, etc…), that there has been no measureable shift in the demographic makeup of our faith. I think you are highlighting one of the issues why. “Not smarmy superiority, not sentimental self-congratulations”…exactly so. People are automatically drawn to real and the decisions for the directions of this denomination are frequently made in ivory tower isolation in the Northeast. (not cracking the region…just observing). If the only way to grow a UU church is through cult of personality (i.e. a tremendously popular minister) then we are clearly way off the path we have set for ourselves. The beacon of our ideas, intellect, and compassion should glow and draw people in, but they have to be able to see it first and these materials are doing us no favors.

    Comment by Tom — June 26, 2009 #

  4. I very much agree.

    Comment by Tracey — June 26, 2009 #

  5. I strongly believe that there is much more to strong ministerial leadership than merely “a cult of personality,” and that this kind of leadership CAN be taught…or perhaps more accurately, learned by someone with the right motivation, commitment, discipline and spiritual curiosity. I’m also not so certain that…well, right now quite frankly I’m not too certain about anything anymore, except that I don’t like our PR materials much either. And that’s really just the START of what I’m not certain about….

    Comment by The Eclectic Cleric — June 27, 2009 #

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds. Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^