Without members of actual congregations, Unitarian Universalism would die. Without members of national UU organizations (like C*UUYAN, to pick a timely example), Unitarian Universalism will be just fine, if somewhat more sedentary in lifestyle.
Let’s lay it all out on the table.1 The movement known as Unitarian Universalism is kept alive by actual people who are actual members of actual congregations. Other facets of the movement contribute to its vitality in their own ways, but their importance pales in comparison to actual members of actual congregations. Let’s call them “congregational Unitarian Universalists.”2
It’s time we start speaking of cultural UUs along the lines of what folks mean by cultural Jews. Example: Jon Stewart’s relationship to Judaism. These are the folks who identify as UU but who do not attend services. Example: graduates of child and youth RE who’ve never returned to congregational life.
Then there are “theoretical Unitarian Universalists.” They’re UUs in the same way I’m an anarchist—I like the idea of it but I have no intention of ever doing anything about it.
There are also “conference UUs.” Example: GA junkies. I’ve picked up a vibe, and I know I’m not the only one, that many conference UUs do not like congregations, or even despise them. Dues-paying members of congregations have every right to resent those conferencers’ hijacking the very movement that their day-to-day commitment to membership sustains.
Let’s throw in “connectional” UUs while we’re at it. These are the folks who are the ligaments and sinews that bind individual congregations to one another, and congregational UUs to others outside their particular congregations. Example: OWL trainers. If “conference UUs” has a sour flavor to it, then “connectional UUs” is more tasty.
All these types of UUs depend on one another, but they especially depend on congregational UUs. If connectional UUs are the ligaments, congregational UUs are the bones.3
Of course folks can be more than one kind of UU simultaneously. But the vast majority of congregational UUs have no connection to these extra-congregational UUs. So what? It’s a small loss compared to the loss extra-congregational UUs choose to experience when they don’t participate in congregational life. Yes, it’s a choice. And, yes, it’s a loss.
Congregations are not perfect, and neither are congregational UUs. But there is so much good that comes from congregational life, things that cannot be matched by camps and conferences and district meetings.
Spirituality outside chosen bonds of like-spirited human communities—outside things like congregations—eventually becomes vapid. The challenges of face-to-face spiritual community are eventually necessary for real live spiritual growth no matter our age or stage. If real live spiritual growth is going to happen anywhere in our movement, it’s got to happen in congregations first.
- This post is my belated response to the great discussion Philocrites has started. I’ve linked to specific comments as much as possible.[↑]
- I don’t mean this to have any connection to the “congregational” in “congregational polity.”[↑]
- And I’ll bet most connectional UUs are also congregationals.[↑]
I agree, wholeheartedly… which is why I said in the article you linked to at the beginning of your post that, in the end, the UUAoC’s focus on congregations will be a positive thing in the long run, no matter what the short term issues it raises might be. But whether the Unitarian Universalism will survive was not my issue…
There is a difference between surviving and being what we want to be in this world. We have shown that we can survive… even in times when the mainline denominations are losing membership, we are gaining (if rather slowly) in our congregations.
We may see some increase in congregational membership out of the UUAoC’s clarification of its mission to congregational support. But the question I am asking is a deeper one than survival. Can we accomplish our goals for transformation of society and culture to be more in line with our values by operation only through our congregations?
I think we need to have a broader reach than that… and the responsibility for that reach does not lie with the UUAoC. In truth, I think it lies with members and ministers of our congregations to come together in ways focused more outward than inward. The UUSC is a good example… but its focus is more action based than ideological/theological.
What that is going to be… I dont know yet. I made a few suggestions. But while the UUAoC clarifies its mission, if we wish to keep those aspects that might not be essential to our movement, that effort needs to come from the members and ministers of our congregations… not from 25 Beacon street.
And I would much rather operate from a place of abundance than a view toward survival.
Thank you for the continued discussion!!!
Yours in Faith,
David
I wouldn’t disagree with anything specific you’ve put here, MC, but it does seem to me that you’ve left out something very important: It’s true that the vast majority of congregational UUs have no connection to “extra congregational” UUs – but it’s also true that congregational UUs don’t have any connection to OTHER congregational UUs, either.
Oh, and I should add that this whole conversation is amazing to me. I was Muslim for 23 years of my life and never once belonged to a mosque. No one ever questioned my identity. Obviously, there are huge differences between Islam as a religious “institution” and UUism as a religious institution, but I have to say …
Joining a UU church felt good and right to me because I was specifically looking for a “community” that would support my spiritual journey (something I hadn’t found as a Muslim). BUT it wasn’t until I became active with UUs far beyond my congregation (on a continental level) that I actually identified culturally as a UU.
This may not work the same for everyone, but my religious identity had always included a sense of belonging to something much much larger than the people in my own town. It’s been interesting to go from walking down a street and recognizing fellow believers (and greeting them as such) to having to be satisfied with seeing a parked car with a UU bumper sticker.
Congregations ARE very important, I totally agree, but if UUism is going to grow – esp. if it’s going to retain members and youth – one’s religious identity has got to be beyond the particular church community one is a member of.
Whether that’s a priority or not … I imagine that will vary from person to person, too.
Sorry to write so much on your blog; I can’t really log into mine right now due to computer issues, otherwise I’d have just written my own post.
Perhaps there is a problem as well with a lack of supra-congregational leaders in Unitarian Universalism. Vajrayana Buddhists can count on the Dalai Lama, and Catholics can refer to the Pope if they are looking for personal references for their religious identity. However, there are no national or international leaders in UUism, only ministers who work at the congregational (local) level, and only a very small number of them gain some recognition within the UU fold (rarely outside it) if they write a successful book or gain some visibility in their social justice action. This means that non-congregational UUs have a hard time maintaining their identity apart from some vague affinities. That means that the movement can hardly grow beyond local successes or mere institutional survival.
I blogged about this move towards what I sometimes call “congregational idolatry” back in 2004:
Unitarian Universalism, Congregationalism, and Congregations
http://liberalfaith.blogspot.com/2004/05/unitarian-universalism.html
Here’s what I posted on Philocrites’ blog about this:
========================
“The metaphor that I use to describe Unitarian Universalism is we are an amoeba.
Amoebas have a core identity or ‘nucleus’ that allows to continue living and growing. Amoebas also have pseudopods (extensions from the core body) allow it to move, grow, and incorporate new things.
As Unitarian Univesalists, we can’t be all ‘nucleus’ because we will become immobile, stagnate, and die.
As Unitarian Universalists, we can’t be all ‘pseudopod’ either because we also need our ‘nucleus’ or congregational core for long-term stability and survival.”
========================
The issue here isn’t some sort of “either/or” false dichotomy between congregational and non-congregational expressions of Unitarian Universalism.
We should step back and view these connections between the various parts of Unitarian Universalism as analogous to mutualism in biology (Wikipedia definition — “Mutualism is a biological interaction between individuals of two different species, where both individuals derive a fitness benefit, for example increased survivorship”).
Why wouldn’t a congregational UU feel connected to other congregational UUs? Lots of the Congregational UUs I know have been members of five or six different UU churches in their adult lives and many maintain friendships at some or all of them.
For example, in the last 20 years, LinguistFriend has been a member of three UU churches, and a regular visitor at another, he maintains friendships at all of those. Come to think of it, half a dozen people at my church know him too now.
CC
Well said.
CC, of the 100 or so new members I’ve taken in the past twelve months, less than 25 were UUs previously. It’s not a question of whether the new members should have connections outside the congregation. Most simply don’t, and won’t for some time.
And if the stats are still true—80-90% of us are “converts”—then this will be true across the board, even as the “converts” gradually pick up connections.
CC – I’m not saying that some people don’t feel connected to churches they’ve belonged to. I’m talking specifically about churches being isolated from each other. I’m sure that two years or so again there was a discussion about this in the blogosphere, and at that time I pointed out that although there are five or six congregations within 15 miles of each other in my area – in the SEVEN years that I’ve been a UU, I’m unaware of a single intracongregational gathering apart from the small group of leaders that works on things like finding volunteers for General Assembly and district assemblies.
I mean, not even a potluck!?! Absolutely, I run into UUs in Portland or Seattle who have been to my church, but now belong to another, and if you belong to enough progressive organizations, your paths will cross with other UUs here. But I don’t see the congregations connecting with each other, sharing resources, or cross pollinating – not at a membership level.
And I just think that’s weird! I’ve never been a UU anywhere else but the Pac NW, so maybe this is something specific to my region.
Chutney wrote:
“And if the stats are still true—80-90% of us are ‘converts’”
Chutney,
The fact that we’re 80 to 90% converts may suggest that we may need to do a better job at keeping youth and young adults who were raised as Unitarian Universalists in our congregations, camps, and conferences.
I would recommend checking out “Children of a Different Tribe: UU Young Adult Developmental Issues” by Sharon Hwang Colligan.
You can find this online here:
http://www.circlemaker.org/cdt.html
Sharon did this resource based on a presentation she did on UU young adult developmental issues at the Nashville GA in 2000.
Sharon suggests in her paper that our churches do an excellent job at reaching out to and providing ministry to newcomer converts but we don’t do that well at reaching out to the former children and youth who were raised in our church basements.
It’s a small loss compared to the loss extra-congregational UUs choose to experience when they don’t participate in congregational life. Yes, it’s a choice. And, yes, it’s a loss…Congregations are not perfect, and neither are congregational UUs. But there is so much good that comes from congregational life, things that cannot be matched by camps and conferences and district meetings.
Disagree. I’ve been to hundreds of Sunday services and grew up in a congregation, but I’ve never experienced anywhere near the spiritual meaning and heights in a congregational setting that I have at conferences. UUism has cultivated an active and effective conference-based form. At conferences, worship takes on dimensions and forms that are impossible in congregational settings. In this post, I’m with you about congregational UUs being the bones until you act as if congregational UUism is inherently superior — religiously, spiritually, and effectiveness-wise — to other forms. The fact is, that is just plain not the case.
Steve: I couldn’t agree more. And we’re doing better already getting them to come back into the fold. Probably ten of those new members were actually re-members who had grown up in our congregation and come back, and that’s a step up for us.
It’s been interesting to go from walking down a street and recognizing fellow believers (and greeting them as such) to having to be satisfied with seeing a parked car with a UU bumper sticker.
This is why I keep trying to get UUs to wear their chalice jewelry all the time. Maybe we could find each other….
[...] of less than 1/4 of American UUs, albeit an extremely important voice. No one is denying that, as Chutney pointed out, UU congregations form the backbone of the Unitarian-Universalist movement in America. Yet they [...]
i’m not sure you go far enough here to describe UUism and the true essence of religion in terms of relationships.
i mean, why aren’t we all reading the same newsletter or listening to the same podcast at home on sunday mornings? it certainly ain’t because we’re extroverts.
[...] defense of the congregation-based model: “The movement known as Unitarian Universalism is kept alive by actual people who are actual members of actual congregations. Other facets of the movement contribute to its vitality in their own ways, but their importance [...]