I normally wouldn’t use the word “stupid” in the title of a post (or in the post itself, for that matter, unless I was referring to something stupid I had done). But in this case, I’m taking the title directly from something I found recently in
the Huffington Post (which has an excellent “Religion” section, by the way)—an article by David Briggs, a columnist for the Association of Religion Data Archives, called “It’s the Spirituality, Stupid: Vital Congregations Cultivate Personal Piety.” In the article, Briggs notes that
There are times when research findings are so obvious they are almost beyond questioning. So it is puzzling that growing evidence showing the importance of congregations cultivating the spiritual lives of the faithful is so routinely ignored.
The research findings he’s referring to come from our old friend the latest Faith Communities Today survey, which states that “the percentage of U.S. congregations reporting high spiritual vitality declined from 43 percent in 2005 to 28 percent in 2010.” Yet at the same time, “the No. 1 reason people gave for moving from a spectator to an active participant in their congregation was this: ‘I responded to an inward sense of call or spiritual prompting.'”
Long story short, attending to the spiritual needs of members, friends, and seekers is a must for any congregation that wants to thrive and not merely survive. This might be a tall order for some Unitarian Universalist congregations that insist on maintaining their humanist identity at all costs. Nothing wrong with humanism, mind you (I consider myself to be one). But if spiritual seekers are coming into the door of a congregation looking “to connect with God and a community that connects with God,” only to find a community that places a “greater emphasis on social service programs or church committee work than on promoting spiritual growth,” those seekers may not stick around too long.
And here’s the thing. All signs point to fewer and fewer people in our country even bothering to check churches out, let alone become regular attenders. That means there are going to be, as UUA President Peter Morales says, fewer and fewer visitors for us to repulse. But how are congregations with little or no experience in promoting individual spiritual growth supposed to suddenly become adept at it? Where would one even begin?
The best place to start, I believe, is with our own tradition. A tradition about which Unitarian Universalist scholar David Robinson has said
Like a pauper who searches for the next meal, never knowing of the relatives whose will would make him rich, American Unitarians lament their vague religious identity, standing upon the richest theological legacy of any American denomination. Possessed of a deep and sustaining history of spiritual achievement and philosophical speculation, religious liberals have been, ironically, dispossessed of that heritage.
More on that tomorrow.
Phil's Little Blog on the Prairie 
20 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 3, 2011 at 10:50 am
Robin Edgar (@RobinEdgar)
Capital ‘T’ Truth be told. . .
Unitarian Universalists have not actually been dispossessed of their rich theological legacy.
Au contraire. . .
Unitarians and Universalists have for decades (if not a century or more) chosen the fate of disregarding, and knowingly and willfully diluting, their rich monotheistic religious heritage so that UUs are now spiritual “paupers” with an (ahem) *impoverished* “vague religious identity” of their own making.
And now Unitarian Universalists engage in public hand-wringing and lamentation about having achieved the “less than flattering” status of a “tiny, declining, fringe religion”. . .
Please forgive me for signing off with,
It’s The Emerson Avenger, Stupid U*Us. . . 😉
November 3, 2011 at 11:02 am
Phil on the Prairie
Neglected could be a more accurate word than dispossessed. As with many things in life, you’ve got to use it or lose it. Thanks for comment, Robin.
November 3, 2011 at 8:14 pm
Robin Edgar (@RobinEdgar)
I would suggest that saying that Unitarian Universalists all but completely *disowned* their rich Judeo-Christian religious heritage is rather more accurate than saying that they neglected it. . . It is certainly far more accurate than saying that UUs were somehow “dispossessed” of their rich “theological legacy”.
I may do a blog post on this subject since I have been warning UUs about the ahem *cost* of disowning their monotheistic religious heritage for years now. When one considers that the “economy” of the North American “religious marketplace” is overwhelmingly composed of Theists who come from a predominantly Judeo-Christian background, it was and still is “economic” folly to throw out the Judeo-Christian baby with the Judeo-Christian bathwater. And UUs falling all over themselves to pay lip-service to God, as *some* are quite evidently doing these days, is not going to help matters all that much. . .
Isaiah 29:13 is particularly pertinent to contemporary Unitarian Universalism AFA*I*AC –
The Lord says: “These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men.”
For atheist & agnostic UUs, and even *some* “soft” theist UUs. . . President Peter Morales words (which he seems to be disregarding himself these days. . .) bear repeating here –
“Either believe in God or don’t believe in God; don’t redefine God to mean something completely different.”
Too many UUs appear to be redefining God to mean something completely different these days.
November 3, 2011 at 8:20 pm
Robert
So, Robin Edgar, you would disagree with my friend who says ” Love raises the frequency of the universe and God is, like, the highest frequency of all. You know.” Or with my minister who announced last Easter that “the sociology of the first century of the common era required the early Christians to create a resurrection myth.” I am not sure whether she conducted a telephone survey of first century Christians to understand their sociology or this is something you get from pottery shards.
November 3, 2011 at 8:42 pm
Robin Edgar (@RobinEdgar)
Yes Robert, the “God Is Love” mantra that UUs seem so fond of repeating ad nauseum these days is open to considerable good old Unitarian *question*. . . You don’t even have to “compare notes” with what is written in the Bible and other theistic scripture, you only need to make a realistic assessment of how the real world works.
And yes, your minister’s pontificating about how early Christians were obliged by social circumstance to create a resurrection myth is open to question too.
November 3, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Robert
And I would have said that I got the impression that UU ministers were theologically stuck in the nineteenth century but UU congregants follow so much that is so vacuous it really doesn’t register with me. I would say that if UU’s can find a way to stick to their principles while remembering that people are more important than principles numbers will naturally increase. There are places this happens.
November 3, 2011 at 8:22 pm
Robin Edgar (@RobinEdgar)
“I would say that if UU’s can find a way to stick to their principles I would say that if UU’s can find a way to stick to their principles while remembering that people are more important than principles numbers will naturally increase. There are places this happens.”
I somewhat cautiously agree with you Robert, but I would ask you to elaborate on and clarify what you mean by –
“remembering that people are more important than principles”
I have seen too many instances of Unitarian Universalists “remembering”: that intolerant and abusive UU clergy are “more important” than UU Principles and ideals if you catch my drift. . . I can provide some well documented examples of such unethical and immoral behavior on the part of UUA & MFC officials if needs be.
November 3, 2011 at 8:40 pm
Robert
People more important than principles?
I’ll give you an example. Until very recently (I resigned my membership), I was a member of a rapidly growing UU congregation. One day earlier this year I was chatting with an acquaintance when the president of the congregation interrupted, a propos of nothing, with a comment that the 40% growth in our membership this year would justify the minister’s $264,000 salary. I quipped “and good morning to you, too” and I was told that my friend and were going to talk about the successes of policy based governance or I could leave the area.
I thought this more nuts than evil.
But 15 minutes later I keeled over from a collapsed artery and had to be taken from church in an ambulance. Care to guess how many people from church called to check on me? Came to see me? Kept me from having to walk myself to a bus to get home when I got out of the hospital?
Zero.
A friend in the choir did bring me a week’s worth of groceries a couple weeks later and I did get a card a few weeks later from the choir. That was kind and sweet. But I decided the powers that be in the church could raise Rev. Wonderful’s $264,000 a year salary without my nickels and dimes and stayed away for months. Then the new pastor finally arrived and I had to admit she is a wonderful speaker.
But the first I came back the new church executive took me aside and told me they didn’t need any more trouble in their services and if I wasn’t sure about the condition of my arteries I should stay home. He pointed two fingers to his face and said he had eyes on trouble and told me I was more trouble that I was worth.
Then I left for good. I still see myself as probably fitting in some UU congregation. These guys would advertise themselves as perfect exemplars of UU principles. I know this because the student minister sent me an email informing me I was spiritually lesser than they and in a few months I could schedule time with the minister to learn how to be a good UU. I told him no thanks.
Does that tell you where I’m coming from?
November 3, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Phil on the Prairie
I’m not sure if UU ministers are stuck in the 19th century. In my opinion, a lot are still in the 20th century. The good news is there are plenty of younger ministers who are decidedly in the 21st century. I do think it’s possible to integrate best practices from all three centuries, though. Thanks for the comment, Robert.
November 3, 2011 at 8:28 pm
Robin Edgar (@RobinEdgar)
I think that it’s entirely possible for Unitarian Universalists to integrate the best religious practices from the last three millennia, if not the last five to six millennia. . .
I have always had a soft spot for these words found in Rev. David O. Rankin’s apparently “obsolete” ‘Little Red Tract’ (as it were) –
We believe in tolerance of religious ideas. The religions of *every* age and culture have something to teach those who listen.
How unfortunate that so many UUs have failed or refused to listen for so long. . .
Source: http://www.floridadistrict.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/uu-beliefs-rankin.pdf
November 3, 2011 at 8:33 pm
Robin Edgar (@RobinEdgar)
Come to think of it I can easily extend “the last five to six millennia” to the last seven to ten millennia if not a tad longer. . .
Obviously I am not thinking in exclusively Judeo-Christian terms, there is much to be learned from ancient “pagan” religious beliefs & practices.
November 3, 2011 at 8:42 pm
Robert
Sorry about my typos. But I think you can follow the thought.
November 3, 2011 at 8:54 pm
Phil on the Prairie
Wow. Quite the conversation. Unfortunately, I’m afraid there are plenty of people who have experiences like the one Robert describes (and not just in UU congregations). And I share Robin’s soft spot for Rankin’s words (“We believe in tolerance of religious ideas. The religions of *every* age and culture have something to teach those who listen”). I think we all might agree that Unitarian Universalist congregations that fail to remember that “people are more important than principles” (and that means the whole person: emotional, spiritual, physical, and intellectual) may find themselves in dire straits. I’m not sure what the answer is. Perhaps we need a little more of what James Luther Adams called “the community-forming power” of God’s love.
November 3, 2011 at 8:57 pm
Robin Edgar (@RobinEdgar)
Robert, with regard to ““remembering that people are more important than principles” I now hear you loud and clear as a gigantic church bell ringing in the corpse-cold Unitarian belfry of an all but empty UU “church”. . . 😉
Apparently you are talking about a quite large corpse-cold Unitarian congregation however, since I can’t see how even a medium sized Unitarian Universalist congregation could possibly justify (or even rationalize) shelling out a quarter of a million dollars per year on their minister’s salary.
Thanks for the corpse-cold Unitarian “horror story” of the month, if not this year. . . I hope you don’t mind too much if I quote you verbatim on The Emerson Avenger blog.
That being said, these callous & uncaring aka “corpse-cold” Unitarian Universalists actually were “remembering that people are more important than principles” in the manner that I was cautioning about and against. . .
i.e. They quite evidently believe that they and their mega-bucks UU minister are considerably more important than the Seven Principles and other claimed UU ideals that would have ensured that your inherent worth and dignity were properly respected.
No?
November 4, 2011 at 12:36 am
Robert
You’re welcome to use my comments.
I left my church with mixed feelings. (I’m also the commenter who related the story of all the doors being locked for the meeting “We Are a Radically Hospitable Church,” same church, trying 12 doors and being admitted when I tried the 13th, the lady at the table taking my $5 for the meal and then telling me “not so fast, where did I put you on my list.”) As a pew mate and I discussed on several occasions before services, if we accept people without regard to disabilities we should accept–and I don’t use the term lightly–sociopaths, too. But I only left the congregation when it became just totally untenable to stay. There were many warm and thoughtful people in the church but the “management” seems to be all about financial security and status in the denomination. Oops, did I suggest this congregation might be prominent in the denomination, or at least think it is?
How does one minister in this situation?
Well, I really do think that sociopaths should be included in fellowship. Apparently my church elected them to leadership so everyone can keep an eye on them. The more difficult assignment is to listen kindly to those who have been injured. I happen to be a Unitarian theist. But my reaction to someone who introduces himself or herself in an angry tone with “My name is —- and I am an atheist” is to give space for story. I don’t point out the oddity of an atheist being angry at God, even when that’s the story. (I do believe one can be an atheist without “issues.” I’ve known a few.)
And I recognize that fleeing mainstream religion on account of “you expect me to believe WHAT” probably isn’t a firm grounding for fellowship, but if that’s where one is, that’s where one is. Sometimes it takes some love and patience not to try to move people from where they are to where you are. And if there is such a thing as a UU missionary, my former church would not be a bad place to do evangelism.
November 3, 2011 at 9:07 pm
Robin Edgar (@RobinEdgar)
“I think we all might agree that Unitarian Universalist congregations that fail to remember that “people are more important than principles” (and that means the whole person: emotional, spiritual, physical, and intellectual) may find themselves in dire straits.”
I must see if there are any Dire Straits songs that I can (mis)use aka parody to make hypocritical U*Us “Face The Music” on The Emerson Avenger blog. . . 😉
‘Money For Nothing’ perhaps?
Now look at them U*U’s that’s the way U*Us do it. . .
Seems to be so apropos of Robert’s testimony here.
No? 😉
I won’t say anything about U*U Sultans Of Swing for the time being anyway. . .
Dire Straits indeed! 🙂
November 9, 2011 at 9:35 pm
Robert
I have a followup on the experiences I shared above.
For several months I’ve been visiting a congregational (I don’t want to reveal which denomination because there are some crazies at my former UU church) church that does a great deal more in mission than my previous UU church ever thought about. It also has a sizeable minority of members of unitarian orientation, and most of the members are universalists. Ironically, I feel I can be a better Unitarian Universalist at this mainstream Protestant church than I ever could be at any of the local UU churches. And about 1/4 of the congregation at the new non-UU church has the same experience with UUism as I. Would Gandhi ever have said, “I would be UU except for UUs?”
November 9, 2011 at 9:47 pm
Phil on the Prairie
Thanks, Robert. I think it’s hard for some UUs to understand why someone of the liberal religious persuasion (i.e., with Unitarian and/or Universalist beliefs) would remain want to remain in a Christian church no matter how progressive it might be. But as you’ve pointed out, there are a lot of such folks, especially in Congregationalist and Episcopalian churches. Mission may be crucial here. I do believe most UU congregations could be much more missional.
November 9, 2011 at 10:37 pm
Robert
Thanks, Phil. Well, I don’t really want to go to a Christian church. But I need either to get lots of tattoos or give lots of money to be accepted at a UU church here! (Seriously, the minister advised getting tattoos.)
November 9, 2011 at 11:42 pm
Phil on the Prairie
Tattoos, eh? I could see where going to a Christian church would be a suitable alternative to that! Although I’m contemplating getting a “Wings of Slack” tattoo. Not really. Thanks for your comments, Robert.