In 1987 I was introduced by friends to a neat little liberal-minded religion, Unitarian Universalism (no, it’s not a cult) - pro-diversity (long before it was PC), pro-woman, pro-gay, liberal theology, etc. (I’d be happy to get into the specifics if anybody wants to hear 'em, which I’m sure someone will, but for the moment…) Over the years I’ve discovered that a good portion of UU’s are usually transfers from other religions, notably Catholicism and Judaism. Somewhere along the way they found themselves or their personal philosophies incompatible with the religion they were raised with and went seeking other spiritual paths. (There are blessed few people who were actually raised UU.) I’ve also discovered over the years that my many, many friends who “don’t believe in religion” or something similar are what I call closet UU’s - what they say they believe in really does fit with what UU’s believe as far as freedom of expression, freedom of belief, be good to your fellow wo/man, etc. (And when I speak of liberal religions, I could also argue for Quakers and United Church of Christ, but since I am not nor ever have been a member of either church, I can only speak from the UU POV.)
So, my question is, if so many people could so easily fit into a liberal religion, why do they comprise the smallest portion of churches (at least in the US)? Why do repressive, hypocritcal, conservative religions like Catholicism and Baptism rule the religious marketplace? Are people really such sheep that they can’t think for themselves to find a religious venue that more reflects their personal beliefs, or is it just bad advertising on the part of these small, liberal religions?
I have no doubt I’m going to regret this post, but hey, I like this board…
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
As an atheist, let me proffer a third possibility. It just might be that adherents to all those “repressive, hypocritcal, conservative religions” actually believe that God commands them to observe in that way. In other words, they believe that they are required to follow what they have learned to be God’s word, rather than simply acknowledge His existence and shop for a religion that suits them.
Well, hey, I’ve already tied religion to commercialism, what more do you want?
Seriously, I never made such a dichotomy - on the contrary, I agree with you. But heck, we’ve got a Democrat in the White House, why aren’t more Democratically-leaning churches then running the Democratic party like the right-wingers run the GOP? Then again, Washington seems to have forgotten about that “separation of church and state” thing…
(I actually would rather not focus on politics per se in this thread, but I see it has relevance overall, sure.)
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
Well, to me, that smacks of sheep - believing only what they’re taught, believing it to be the only truth, and never thinking otherwise or for themselves. One of the great parts of UUism is that they actually study and explore other religious beliefs so that people can decide on a philosophy that suits them.
And, yes - UU’s do welcome Atheists and Agnostics. By the truckload.
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
Don’t worry. I’m not going to invoke the “L” word or anything. I’m just saying that, the way I see it, the most powerful groups in any discipline — religion, science, art, business, or anything else — are those with the most political clout.
Their influence is more ubiquitous because it isn’t built on principle, but on expedience.
As one who believes in God, I agree with manhattan. People are going to follow the path that they feel is right, whether that feeling is based on faith, reason, or a combination of both.
Well…yeah. It appears that way to me too, but that’s not how they see it. (Dunno if I’m making any sense here).
This is something I’m aware of, but have never understood. What would motivate an atheist to attend any sort of church, rather than just sleeping in on Sunday? I guess I can kind of see why an agnostic would choose to attend.
Is that really true? Are there in fact very few people whose parents were Unitarians who are Unitarians themselves? If this is so, think about what this means. Apparently then Unitarianism is a one-generation religion. People who were raised in some more standard faith (I really wouldn’t say more conservative, so I’ll say “standard” for lack of a better term) take up Unitarianism, but their children, after being raised as Unitarians, decide that they don’t want to go to church at all. Or perhaps it goes the other way around. Some people who don’t go to any church at all as children go to Unitarian churches as adults, seeking some faith to believe in, but their children then decide that they want more well-defined faiths, so they go to standard churches.
But I’m not sure if you meant your observation seriously or not. Is it really true that Unitarianism is a one-generation faith?
Speaking as an atheist, there are two reasons that I attend church. First, my husband is Catholic and believes that our children should be raised with religious values. I agree, to a limited extent–I think it is an important source of teaching on values to children before they are old enough to decide for themselves what they believe. Second, I find a great deal that is important and insightful in the Bible and in Christian thought–it is one of the most powerful philosophies on earth. I just don’t happen to believe that it is divinely inspired. Some catchy tunes, too.
I know a family where the father is a second-generation Unitarian and the mother is Presbyterian (but far more outspokenly evangelical than is typical for that church). They have seven kids. Two have joined evangelical fundamentalist churches, two are Christmas and Easter Presbyterians, one is a mainstream Presbyterian minister, one is a Unitarian and one is an atheist who likes to sing gospel. There ya go.
And as “liberal” religions go, please don’t forget Paganism. How more liberal can you get than a group of people who can’t agree on who, what, how, when, where, or why to worship? No dogma, no hierarchy, no evangelicism. It’s both our strength and our weakness. It’s really hard to bully another Pagan with “But Ra wants it this way!” when they’re off lighting candles to Eris. Of course, getting us to do something constructive together is a lot like trying to herd cats.
As someone who was raised Catholic, spent a number of years in the United Church of Christ and is now parked in the Evangelical Lutheran Church (more liberal than the Missouri Synod, but still relatively conservative) I can come up with several reasons why people would gravitate toward the more conservative end of the spectrum.
The liberal churches tend to preach a gospel of social action. The conservative churches lean more toward a message of personal salvation.
Liberal churches tend to have less dogma and more advice to follow one’s own conscience. Some people are more comfortable with a more delineated code of behavior.
Liberal churches tend to be less traditional while conservative churches tend to favor the older rites of worship, hymns, etc. Some people are more comfortable with the rituals they grew up with.
I’m not being judgmental. I’ve had wonderful experiences with each of the churches I’ve affiliated with. But they aren’t interchangable, and different people will go different ways.
Are you sure you’re not talking about the Society of Friends? (Quakers) My husband used to go to Meeting and Pagan circles and he says they’re not much different. Well, with the exception of how they dress.
Prairie Rose
If you’re not part of the solution you’re just scumming up the bottom of the beaker.
Near as I can see, many people (especially those raised in a Christian environment) want the pomp and circumstance that comes with a more “conservative” church. Many feel that church isn’t church without incense or candles or acolytes or the “right” hymns or what-have-you.
(My SO is, on occasion, Episcopalian. As she puts it, “Catholic Lite: all the regalia, none of the guilt.”)
This is in my mind less a distinction between liberal and conservative theology than between traditional and non traditional presentation. I’ve seen a number of “touchy-feely” Catholic churches, for example, which still preach a conservative theology, and many liberal churches that still want to have the snazzy robes and such.
A dear friend of mine is a Methodist minister. He is extremely conservative theologically (like, Augustinian), but is personally fairly liberal (well, as much as can be expected after 20 years in the Air Force).
One nitpick (personal pet peeve): most theologians do NOT consider “conservative Christian theology” to include Rapture, Millennial, or Apocalyptic theologies. IIRC, Wilemon (Duke Th. Sem.) called the Left Behind series “remarkably conservative in its liberalism.” (yes, I’ll try to find the cite :))
It seems to me that the people who would be attracted to this religion would be the kind of people who would not feel the need to join any organized religion, even one they agreed with.
I only determine the course of my own UUism - hence the point. UU’s are a group of people whose spiritual paths differ from each other, yet we still find strength in congregating together and exploring our differences as well as our similarities and, hopefully, learning from one another and making each of us better people.
I guess what I was thinking was, how many RC’s believe what they believe simply because it was what they were taught? Wouldn’t they believe something different if they were raised Jewish? I’m saying why don’t more people take a step back from their own beliefs and see if they actually believe them, or they’re just used to them. I get your point, tho.
Yet another point for UUism - we don’t always talk about God, or even spirituality for that matter. Some of my favorite sermons were simply discussions of famous UU’s in history (Walt Whitman, for example). Besides, I like talking to Atheists - they make me think, yet another tenant of UUism.
A good point. Unitarianism and Universalism, separately, go back hundreds of years (heretics all, by the way, but still Christian denominations). I can’t say for sure when the shift came to a more humanistic approach, but in 1961 the two churches found they had almost identical ideals, and so became one church. So does this make it a “one-generation” faith? Maybe - this is when it started to gain a new surge of growth.
As far as kids leaving, there are way more converts to UUism than from, but yes, some people do find other spiritual paths; in a way, though, that’s what UUism is all about. If you study Judaism and discover it’s right for you, become a Jew. Realize, though, that many people in the UU faith do not alway just consider themselves UU - I know Jewish UU’s, Christian UU’s, Agnostic UU’s, etc. (their own labels, not the church’s).
Goddess no! We’ve got Pagans, too - even have their own denomination-wide group, CUUPS (Covenant of UU Pagans)
You’ve hit upon the bulk of it, I think. But it seems to me that those who have “lost religion” or “don’t believe in organized religion” are more social-conscious than salvation-conscious, less dogma-oriented and more conscious-driven, less traditional, etc. - a perfect fit, IMHO. And yet, our numbers are not swelling. Does this reflect back to my earlier sheep comments? Are people really more comfortable being told what to believe rather than figuring out if it’s really what they believe? Heck, UU’s have often commented that it’s harder to be UU than something more tradition for that very reason - we don’t have a list of beliefs that you can easily look at and say, “Well, I believe in A, B and C, so I guess I’m Catholic,” or Jewish, or whatever. All us UU’s do is question, question, question… and set up committees.
Agreed, although we do sort of disagree a bit from the Pope…
Although I have to say that having visited a wide variety of UU congregations around the country, we probably reflect much more diversity than any other more mainstream faith. Where I was choir director, they were all middle-aged hippies with kids heading into college; in Boston, they’re practically evangelizing and almost exclusively Christian; and the 5 or 6 churches in the DC beltway are as diversified as any churches can get. Yet we still adhere to the UU Purposes and Principles, support each others religious diversity, and still manage to get together every Sunday without bloodshed. Me, I love this about us.
Yup, which I suppose answers my OP. But, as stated above, UUism is more humanistic and social-oriented, tying it strongly into a religious belief system. This should be our selling point, but that “church” label does sometimes get in the way (not that I’m ashamed of it or think it should be changed - we are still a spiritual community). I’m a firm believer that the world needs more “religion,” in whatever way each person identifies with that word; a dearth of spiritual awareness erodes at society’s conscious, but just not quite the way the religious right portrays it (i.e., the world needs our religion to be better).
We have our problems, though, and I suppose my example should answer my own OP - I took a devoutly Christian but liberal friend (i.e., he’s gay, for starters) to the UU church in San Diego, and he was very uncomfortable. Yes, we have our traditions - kids choir, lighting of candles for joy and concern, sermon, etc. - but I think they weren’t rigorous enough. Plus, a lesbian member, as part of a series, got up to discuss how she found UUism, and bashed her Christian upbringing, making him very uncomfortable. Me, I wasn’t thrilled with it either, but as a UU, I understand its just her POV, and I don
I am actually distinctly nervous about commenting on this thread. There is little I disagree with in UU theory, and so far as practice goes, you would have to be much more hardshell than I to find fault with their services.
That may be the problem. In attempting to be all-inclusive, charitable, and loving to all, the UU community may have minimized its assertiveness as a faith to the point that it does not attract allegiance. There is a hoary old joke about the UU leader who was asked to state what UUs believed in. {Insert long pause} “Well…*at most one god.”
Bad joke. But suggestive of something quite valid. If it doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you are accepting of others’ rights, then you have a faith with no body, a tenuous ectoplasm of a belief that cannot be adhered to, any more than you can get a good grip on oxygen. And hence you get the one-generation phenomenon noted by earlier posters.
Though I agree with nearly everything UU doctrine says, I come at it from an entirely different perspective. It’s my marching orders from the Man Who has my allegiance. And though I’ll trust a UU member faster than nearly anybody else on an open question, I cannot help but feel that it’s a Dr. Feelgood sort of belief, a “pop theology” that has no defined limits.
I did not intend this to be a UU-bash, and I sincerely hope that neither Esprix nor anybody else takes it as that. It’s my attempt at a reasoned analysis of why, appealing as UU-ism is, I’m not one, and why, meeting so many people’s spiritual needs, it does not attract more people. Any negatives in it are simply conclusions from that attempt, not intentional putdowns.
On a lighter note, you have to remember that they were involved in the Internet as soon as Al Gore founded it: one of the two original networks that coalesced to form the Internet was uunet. (The Secret Doctrine of UU-ism is secreted there in uuencode.) :rolleyes:
Be afraid not… er, I mean, no wailing and gnasing of… no, wait, um…
Minimized its assertiveness? Respectfully disagree. The UUA has been the one working with the Boy Scouts to sit down and end their anti-gay and anti-Atheist practices. Of course, there are other examples, but that’s the most recent one that comes to mind.
And here is a common misconception. UUism is all about spirituality, despite the fact that we sound so amorphous about it. No, we are not a bunch of hippies who say “groovy” to every wacky theology that comes down the pike; nor are we a bunch of intellectuals who discuss religion without partaking of its benefits (although I will admit to knowing both kinds of people in my church). We congregate on Sunday morning. We sing hymns. We light candles. We have a sermon. We pray. We have a church bulletin. And we form a community, one of the most important functions of any church. In encouraging people to find their own spiritual path, we form a community of people, each searching for meaning, and searching together - sounds like a religious community to me.
But your point is taken - we are perceived as being too wishy-washy and/or humanistically-inclined, and our liberal doctrines leave people thinking, “Well, without strict guidelines, you’re not really a ‘church,’ are you?” Sounds like a PR problem, betcha. (But then they’ve got idiots like me witnessing on places like this, so… {grin})
Heavens no - at this point I know when I’m being bashed (for any number of reasons, take yer pick), and certainly know the difference between intelligent discourse, disagreement, and being mean.
Ack! You are the Not We, and therefore must be punished for learning our nefarious plans!
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
Hmmmm… Esprix… let me insert my total lack of knowledge here (otherwise known as ignorance)… and ask… What is a sermon in a UU church like? Hmmm… I don’t even know if I can ask the question in a way that would make more sense. I know that in the Christian sermons I have heard, I hear about the love of Christ, what to do and what not to do because of Christ, etc… all of which have Christ as a center theme. So this question is also posed as a lack of understanding of all other religions I guess. So… with such a diverse crowd at the church… how does a sermon NOT step on someone’s toes?
