Now that I’m done with my Five Signs of Congregational Decline workshop, I realize I may have left a couple of signs out. Like this one:
You see, the source material I used for the workshop was primarily Christian, so while there are plenty of similarities between a declining Christian congregation and a declining Unitarian Universalist congregation, I think that there may be two more commonalities of decline that are exclusively UU. So in addition to the five signs I covered in my original workshop (lack of vision, no clear path for spiritual development, overly complex structure, inward focus, and leadership fatigue), I’d like to add two specifically UU signs of decline: intolerance toward Christians, and anti-clericism.
I’m amazed by the number of rank-and-file UUs who just don’t see why a congregation should be welcoming to Christians. I say rank-and-file because any clergy person worth his or her salt knows to meet people where they spiritually are, and if that means respecting someone’s desire to retain their Christian identity (perhaps “freely following Jesus” as our brothers and sisters in the UU Christian Fellowship say), then Amen and Blessed Be. We clergy are trained to respect another person’s spiritual orientation, just as we respect another person’s sexual and affectional orientation. It is truly sacred ground and should be treated as such. But in many of our primarily lay-led congregations, Christians are personae non gratae (and you can bet that I had to look up the plural of that bit of Latin on the interwebs).
Which brings me to my second additional sign of decline for UU congregations: being habitually suspicious of clergy. After all, clergy are full of ideas about how to change things. Like maybe being more welcoming. To Christians. They’ll tell us about all the things we’re doing wrong. That we should call what we do on Sunday mornings “worship,” and that the talks given during that time are “sermons,” and that we shouldn’t burn Bibles as part of our publicity campaign. Well we had a minister here once, and she actually used the word “God” from the podium. Never again.
I’m afraid that it’s that kind of thinking that is probably keeping a lot of our smaller congregations…what’s the word? Small. And that’s a problem. According to my figures, almost 200 of our congregations have under 35 members, which means they wouldn’t even be allowed to affiliate with the UUA if they weren’t already part of it. I’m guessing that many of those congregations exhibit some if not all of the five signs of decline. Add in the exclusively UU signs, and you may just have the last two coffin nails needed to seal their fate. (Unless, of course, they’re zombies.)
It’s a deadly combination, I fear: anti-Christian and anti-clergy. Given the massive changes in the religious landscape of America in the next ten years, I’m not sure how many of these congregations can survive. Perhaps some sort of shock therapy is necessary to break these habits, something like inviting a liberal Christian clergy person to give a sermon about why he or she is a Christian. Or maybe making it a point to have a UU minister visit seven or eight times a year. Or offering (and advertising) a Bible Study using John Buerhens’ book Understanding the Bible. I’m open for suggestions. If you’ve got an idea, please let me know.
43 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 24, 2011 at 8:16 am
Erin Dajka
And, if those small congregations do decide that they want to invite UU clergy into their pulpits several times a year, (and are in Prairie Star, Central Midwest, or Heartland Districts) they have a fantastic resource to find the preachers who will help challenge them. We call it Stonetree Congregational Resources. It is a searchable database of people who have skills that congregations might need.
Thanks, Phil, for adding these to your list. I happen to agree. Change is the hardest and most threatening thing in any of our lives, but it can also be the healthiest.
January 24, 2011 at 8:17 am
Erin Dajka
The website didn’t publish: http://www.stonetreeuu.org
January 24, 2011 at 8:40 am
psdlund
Yes, Erin! Stonetree is a great resource for finding speakers in the MIdAmerica region (lay and ordained). http://www.stonetreeuu.org/
January 24, 2011 at 8:24 am
Fred wooden
Hey Phil, I got a spiel on the the five dogmas of UUism that overlaps your stuff. Wanna see it? Just tell me where to send it.
January 24, 2011 at 8:38 am
psdlund
Love to see it, Fred! psdlund@gmail.com
January 24, 2011 at 9:17 am
fausto
It doesn’t occur only in our small, lay-led congregations. And it almost always occurs together with some of the other five impediments you named previously.
January 24, 2011 at 11:36 am
psdlund
I agree, @fausto. Even when a congregation has some sort of regular ministry (consulting, quarter-time, what have you), lingering suspicion of clergy can still stifle growth. Often in conjunction with anti-Xian sentiment.
January 24, 2011 at 9:23 am
Kathy Burek
Thanks for posting this, Phil. I know a now-growing congregation that was anti-clergy for years, and still has pockets of anti-Christian sentiment, but not as bad as it was historically. Congregations can change their outlook and culture, but it takes work and vision.
January 24, 2011 at 11:38 am
psdlund
Yes, Kathy! I, too, am aware of congregations that are on the upswing after dealing with their reservations about clergy. Changing outlook and culture does take hard work and vision.
January 24, 2011 at 10:36 am
Kristina
I am a new UU (only 3-4 years now), very active in my (thriving) congregation, and delighted to have found this faith and my congregation in particular: I love being UU, and I’m committed. But my number one complaint, or concern, about UUs is what I perceive to be a major lack of tolerance toward Christians. Stereotyping and generalizations about Christians are accepted in ways that shock me: the same people who speak so negatively about Christians would never consider doing the same about Hindus or Buddhists or gays or immigrants, but appear to feel that it’s perfectly acceptable to belittle Christians and Christianity. Intolerance is ugly, and I feel like this is UU’s dirty little secret. I’m delighted to see you addressing this.
January 24, 2011 at 11:39 am
psdlund
Thanks for the support, Kristina. I really wish that UU congregations could be places where anyone could explore their faith and spirituality, no matter what their theological orientation.
January 24, 2011 at 5:29 pm
karrie
I grew up UU in a large UU church – went to UU church school for al long as I can rememberl. in fact my grandparents were UU – (still would be if they were around). I became a Christian several years ago. On the one hand, I think growing up Unitarian has made me a “better” Christian – cause I don’t want to be “that” Christian. However – I have been conscious since day one of self-identifying as Christian of the ways Christians are stereotyped, and spoken of. I generally keep my mouth closed about my spiritual beliefs, especially when I am around more liberal relegious theologies.
What I find particularly painful is that the UU’s who do this are engaging in the VERY thing that they are advocating against, usually quite successfully, in othe areas of social justice.
In many, in fact, in most areas I find no conflict between my UU upbringing and my current identification as Christian. I understand that “religion” results in a terrible experience for many many people – and I get this much more viscerally than many would expect. My work in mediation, conciliation and interfaith dialogue has taught me that generally the “religious” people are just like all the other people – they get things wrong, they’re human, they hate and they make mistakes. Those religious fundamentalists that are focused on hate (ie. Buddhist Death Squads (yes, they exist), Muslim Terrorists, Christians burning the Qur’an) those types exist in EVERY religion – even non-religion, humanists, athiests, ets.
I embrace my UU background. But I often don’t feel welcomed or embraced by UU’s – I mourn that there isn’t even a conversation happening. Why did I become Christian, how do I reconcile Hell with Universalisim, what are my thoughts around Sin. People assume my answers, but rarely ask.
My constant prayer is dialog and compassion between all people. I don’t have to agree with another to understand and respect them.
January 24, 2011 at 5:40 pm
Phil on the Prairie
Thanks for your comment, Karrie. Your final thought reminds me of what Francis David said: “We need not think alike to love alike.” I wish that were so in more of our congregations.
January 24, 2011 at 10:31 pm
Lilly Bubser
Finally I’ve found a religion that fits me! I have been a happy Humanist for just over 10 years and am a member of a Unitarian congregation in the Twin Cities. While I am an Atheist (read Humanist), it is not a requirement at our congregation, but I feel many people are. I don’t really think that your new sign of decline for UU congregations: intolerance toward Christians, works for all UU churches. If my congregation were just any old generic liberal, Christian church, I wouldn’t feel welcome. Thankfully in the Twin Cities you pick any flavor of UUism since we have lots of different UU churches to choose from. All people in this country should be free and respected in their religious beliefs. This may not be the kind of church that fits you or other UUs, but that’s okay. I do want to say we should always be respectful to other religions even if we don’t follow their dogma. Intolerance is a tough word since the UUA rainbow is so broad. This makes me feel that it wasn’t such a bright idea for the 1961 merger?
January 24, 2011 at 10:42 pm
Phil on the Prairie
Thanks for your comment, Lilly. There certainly is a lot of diversity among UU congregations in the Twin Cities, and that’s a good thing! When you get outstate (and out of state), however, the pickings become much slimmer. I’ve seen small UU congregations in isolated areas that are very tolerant of Christians, and I’ve seen not so tolerant congregations. So, yes, this sign certainly doesn’t apply to all UU congregations.
January 25, 2011 at 8:20 am
Steve Caldwell
Phil,
Given the current dominant position that Christianity has in North American culture, I think it may be helpful to look at this through an anti-oppression lens:
“Christian and Non-Christian Unitarian Universalists — Anti-Oppression Implications”
http://liberalfaith.blogspot.com/2005/03/christian-and-non-christian-unitarian.html
“Viewing Anti-Christian Anger Through an Anti-Oppression Lens — Greta Christina’s Defense of the ‘Blasphemy Challenge’”
http://liberalfaith.blogspot.com/2007/03/viewing-anti-christian-anger-through.html
Here’s a quote from my 2005 blog post on this topic:
“Non-Christian folks in our congregations who hear about the non-UU versions of Jesus and are immersed in a Christian-centric culture for the 166 hours each week that they are not in a UU church may instinctively ‘wince’ when they hear ‘Jesus’ mentioned in a UU pulpit (even if the ‘Jesus’ is a UU version of Jesus and not Jerry Falwell’s Jesus).
UU Non-Christians who are prone to ‘wincing’ need to remember that our UU Christian friends (and liberal Christian friends like our UCC cousins) didn’t create this world where Christianity has unearned power and privilege. Like everyone else in North America, we are all inheritors of a situation that was around before we were born. The responsibility that we non-Christian UUs have is to acknowledge this situation in the spirit of love and not blame our UU Christian (and other liberal Christian) friends for a situation they did not create nor desire.
UU Christians need to remember that they are walking in the door of a church wearing a garment of ‘power and privilege’ that was not freely accepted but rather forced on them by our wider North American culture. UU Christians joining a predominantly non-Christian UU congregation are (unknowingly?) engaging in anti-oppression work by giving up unearned power and privilege granted to them by the wider culture.”
Unfortunately when I’ve suggested this anti-oppression framework, some who are UU Christians posting on my blog have rejected the possibility that their religious beliefs may be more privileged in our society simply by being Christian.
Until this “dead elephant in the room” is acknowledged, it will be very difficult to have this conversation in Unitarian Universalism.
January 25, 2011 at 8:32 am
Phil on the Prairie
I like this perspective, Steve. This is definitely a touchy subject. I think it gets even more complicated when we consider that “spiritual, but not religious” and “non-affiliated” are two of the fastest growing groups in the United States when it comes to religious preference. How do UU congregations. How can we appeal to the new Atheist/Agnostics and liberal Christians at the same time?
February 3, 2011 at 7:47 pm
UUnderstand
Several years ago, the “Atlantic Monthly” published an article written by a white woman who regularly attended a black Christian church. She genuinely enjoyed the services and the people, but asked one of her black friends, no longer a churchgoer, whether he thought she made the rest of the congregation uncomfortable by “invading their territory.” If I recall correctly, he replied that only the congregation could answer that question, one she didn’t dare ask.
UU Christians in primarily humanist/agnostic/atheist UU congregations are not unlike white members of black churches. Some non-Christian UUs may express overt scorn to UU Christians, but others (myself included) are genuinely perplexed, especially since so many “liberal” Christian churches (e.g. UCC) exist.
UU Christians do not owe anyone explanations for their beliefs, but they should be sensitive to the fact that for some UUs, UU congregations may be the only places where they can be “out of the closet” as non-Christians. While anti-Christian UU sentiments are often expressed in the cerebral terminologies of science, philosophy, and/or academic theology, they are also the visceral reactions of a small landowner who catches the neighboring manor lord trespassing: you have acres of gardens to wander! Why must you sit under my lone flowering tree?
Some of my favorite questions for Christians who are critical of non-Christians are: would you still be Christian if you lived in a nation/culture where Christianity was not a dominant religion?
Would you still be Christian if you knew you would be a victim of religous discrimination, perhaps even persecution? Again, no one owes me an answer, but Christians should answer these questions for themselves.
February 3, 2011 at 9:32 pm
Phil on the Prairie
Interesting metaphor, UUnderstand. I’d add there are Christians who consider themselves humanists and even atheists. Clearly not a majority, though!
February 4, 2011 at 9:14 am
Ben
Regarding anti-Christian sentiment, I have a story to share. When Jessie and I moved to Emporia, KS (a town without a UU church) a few years ago, we began searching for a church that was liberal enough for us. I was inclined to try the Congregational and Quaker churches, but they both proved to be more conservative than the United Methodist church, which luckily enough was the tradition Jessie grew up in. Still, I wasn’t sold. I felt like I was compromising myself and my beliefs by going to an overtly Christian church which didn’t acknowledge non-Christians.
My attitude hit a turning point when I ran into a woman from the Methodist church at her workplace, and she asked how our search was going. “Well, it’s complicated,” I said. “You see, I’m a Unitarian Universalist, so…” I trailed off; I didn’t expect her to know what that meant (even the minister was unclear), but to my surprise she lit up. “Oh, that’s great!” she said. “So you can feel at home anywhere!”
I was at a loss for words. That’s exactly the opposite of how I felt. And yet, why shouldn’t I be able to feel at home anywhere? Her offhand comment caused me to reexamine my UU upbringing and beliefs, and I came to a much more inclusive understanding of what church is for and what it means to be a UU in a non-UU church. I haven’t told her yet, but I’m very grateful for that comment.
So although I feel a deep sympathy for the sentiment above — “you have acres of gardens to wander! Why must you sit under my lone flowering tree?” — I have to disagree. We are the ones with the acres of gardens to wander. Every sacred and secular scripture of the world is open to us. We are free to eat the fruit of every tree in the garden, while many others are restricted. If someone chooses to join us under a tree that’s not part of their smaller, walled garden, we should welcome them, not resent their encroachment on “our” space.
February 4, 2011 at 10:06 am
Phil on the Prairie
A wonderful story, Ben. thank you.
January 25, 2011 at 2:08 pm
Robin Edgar
:I say rank-and-file because any clergy person worth his or her salt knows to meet people where they spiritually are, and if that means respecting someone’s desire to retain their Christian identity (perhaps “freely following Jesus” as our brothers and sisters in the UU Christian Fellowship say), then Amen and Blessed Be.
Does that mean that those U*U clergy persons who do not in fact “meet people where they spiritually are”, and even engage in various forms of religious intolerance and bigotry, are not worth their salt Phil?
January 25, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Phil on the Prairie
Most of the clergy, UU and otherwise, that I’m acquainted with are what I would consider worth their salt (i.e., human beings of good will trying to do what they do to the best of their abilities). I heard tell that there are those out there who aren’t, but they’re not in the groups I run with.
January 27, 2011 at 8:13 am
The Emerson Avenger
I can think of several of “those out there who aren’t” just off the top of my head Phil. . .
To borrow a phrase from the X-Files – *Those* U*Us are out there.
January 27, 2011 at 11:19 am
Phil on the Prairie
I’m sure you can, Robin. And I may have heard of some myself. But that really wasn’t th point of the original post.
February 1, 2011 at 10:58 am
Ben
Phil, thanks for this post. Like a lot of people I have some strong opinions on the subject… but for now I feel I must speak up and say that anti-clergy sentiment doesn’t just arise out of nowhere. Read through our UU principles — about how everybody has equal worth and everybody has a piece of the truth — and then put one person up on a pedestal telling everybody else that s/he knows better than everyone else, and you’ll see where some of the hostility comes from. Congregations need facilitators, no question. But leaders? I don’t know if we can get the cats to herd around that!
UU clergy have a very fine line to walk between doing the job they were trained for and betraying the egalitarian principles they stand for. And while most UU clergy do a fantastic job of walking that line, it only takes a handful to make a whole congregation think that the very concept of clergy is fundamentally anti-UU. (And by extension, a UUA President out of his/her depth could ruin it for the whole denomination. I’m just sayin’.) So just telling people that their distrust of clergy is holding them back is not helpful… clergy (as a group) need to recognize that they (individual representatives of that group) actively lost people’s trust and figure out how to earn it back.
February 1, 2011 at 11:50 am
Phil on the Prairie
Thanks your comment, Ben. I agree that there’s a fine line that clergy need to walk, but I don’t think the line is between facilitator and leader. I think it’s between authority and leadership. Dan Hotchkiss has an excellent article on that very subject: http://t.co/bdQlFiZ
February 5, 2011 at 9:20 pm
Henry Halff
Another sign that I see in my own failing, and probably ex-, congregation is alienation from the denomination. As congregations grow weaker they find fewer and fewer resources to devote to the movement as a whole. They see the denomination as irrelevant and indeed tend to blame the denomination for the sad state of affairs in their congregation.
February 5, 2011 at 10:59 pm
Phil on the Prairie
That definitely could be another sign, Henry. And not just from the denomination, but isolation from other congregations as well. Thanks for the helpful, though perhaps painful, addition to the list.
February 20, 2011 at 10:49 am
Paul Beedle
Excellent assessment of a long-standing UU problem.
We often mention anti-clericism as a UU problem, especially in Fellowships. I wonder if that is not a case of clergy taking it personally. What many UUs lack and resist is religious skills – skills are not a notable part of our children’s curricula, either – and clergy are always interested in religious practice. Are they anti-clergy, or anti-religious-practice? I think resistance to actually having and following a religious practice – personally and communally – has more explanatory power for the phenomenon we typically label anti-clericism.
February 20, 2011 at 11:12 am
Phil on the Prairie
I think you’re onto something here, Paul. My biggest complaint about the Fellowship Movement is that it gathered folks together, but didn’t give them any clues about best practices for being in community together. Result? The default model for interaction became the faculty meeting, since most of the leaders of these fellowship were academics. Hence the standard question for visitors to fellowships in the ’50s and ’60s: “What department are you in?” I believe we would have been a little better off if we used a different model for being in community without a religious leader. Perhaps the Quakers?
April 1, 2011 at 8:20 am
Robert
I’ve been a member of a UU congregation for all of six weeks, but I’ve already decided that I am definitely in the Pentecostal UU division. I came to UUism not because I didn’t have any beliefs or because I was angry with the Christian church in which I was raised, but rather because I see UUism as the natural progression of the Christian church (Baptist) in which I was raised, its evolution, so to speak.
I suggested to our interim minister that maybe we should ask the pagan UU’s to cast a spell on the atheist UU’s to make them less grumpy. But I was only kidding. Even if one believes that old-time religion is just a firing of a neuron that stimulates itself (sorry, I didn’t look up the technical term, I guess I wouldn’t be very impressive in some congregations), in fact, especially if the feeling associated with old-time religion is just a firing of a neuron that stimulates itself, why not let people have both their joys and their sorrows and share when one can?
April 1, 2011 at 9:51 am
Phil on the Prairie
I think you’re onto something here. Not about casting spells, but the change in attitude among some of the newer UUs. They’re not angry with Christianity, necessarily, and they’d like to be able to bring their whole selves (including the Christian parts) to their religious communities. Thanks for the comment, Robert!
April 1, 2011 at 9:58 am
Henry Halff
The same can be said for really old UUs. There was a time when we welcomed and expected the entire spectrum of religious beliefs both inside and outside our walls. We even joked (and I hesitate to mention it in this day and age), “Everyone is a Unitarian. Most of them just don’t know it yet.”
April 1, 2011 at 10:40 am
Phil on the Prairie
If we could get back to that welcoming and expecting the entire spectrum of religious beliefs, I think we’d be doing ourselves a big favor. Thanks, Henry!
April 1, 2011 at 10:59 am
Robert
Maybe we can recycle a line from a hymn that Baptists used to sing (and don’t anymore), “With deeds of love and kindness, the Heavenly Kingdom’s won.”
I wonder if liberal “Fundamentalists” don’t have some of the same issues as conservative Fundamentalists. Just as some liberal Baptists fret over what people will say at the country club if they were to ordain a lesbian minister, maybe some UU’s are concerned about some version of “what people would think” if they were to embrace people of heart-felt Christian belief.
Just as some Christian Fundamentalists are afraid of hellfire and damnation (we can’t disprove hellfire and damnation any more than Christian Fundamentalists can prove them, by the way), maybe some atheist UU’s are concerned about “creeping belief.” They struggled to get free of a belief system that did not make any sense to them, and they vow “never again” to their former religion’s tenets.
We may or may not win them to our ideas, but we can be kind. Through progreams or person to person. Better, both.
April 1, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Phil on the Prairie
Being kind is a good place to start. Perhaps we should emphasis love and forgiveness a little more, too.
June 29, 2011 at 11:27 am
JoyceD
I stumbled across your site and we have welcomed people in our congregation who consider themselves both trinitarian and unitarian. I don’t understand it, but I think they’re taking trinitarianism symblicly and holding on to a tradition that is important to them. What’s wrong we that? Among our trinitarian UU members is an ordained (& still active in his parish) Episcopalian priest who’s very active in our congregation & UU-sounding when he preaches.
June 29, 2011 at 2:50 pm
Phil on the Prairie
Thanks for the comment, Joyce. Once upon a time, I used to think that being a Trinitarian automatically excluded someone from going to a Unitarian congregation. But I now see that as a bit ridiculous, especially since I was excluded from at D.Min. program at a Trinitarian seminary just because I’m a Unitarian. If we really believe that our faith is based in deeds, not creeds, then we should accept anyone whose deeds reflect the values we share and not worry too much about the specifics of their beliefs.
July 9, 2011 at 11:40 am
Henry Halff
I grew up in the First Unitarian Church of Dallas then under the leadership of Robert Raible, one on the greatest Unitarian and UU ministers of his time. One time my mother, a former Church of Christer, asked Raible, “Bob, can you believe in the Trinity and still be a Unitarian?”
His response was, “Honey, if you can’t, then I’m not.”
July 9, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Phil on the Prairie
Wow! What a great reply. Thanks for the story, Henry.
July 9, 2011 at 12:00 pm
Robert
This is a long and interesting thread. And it’s an important topic. I have to say it seems odd to me that we can accept atheists (should we call them No-tarians) without any difficulty and followers of polytheistic faiths but many of us bristle at the presence of Christians. In my own church, the explanations of why-Christianity-is-wrong at Christmas and Easter are so convoluted and, well, cribbed from some book somewhere, that it’s enough to make you wonder if they aren’t actually right. I don’t accept the traditional Christian view of the Trinity, but why get all riled up about something you don’t believe is real?
July 9, 2011 at 1:36 pm
Phil on the Prairie
I love what theologians do with the Trinity from an allegorical and metaphorically perspective (which is why I would have been fine with the Luther Seminary D.Min. program). It’s when belief in the Trinity is required that gets my non-creedal goat. But as you say, “why get all riled up about something you don’t believe is real?” Thanks, Robert.